Patient & Survivor Care

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips often fail to correctly identify rare variants, a large study suggests.

In fact, SNP chips are “extremely unreliable for genotyping very rare pathogenic variants,” and a positive result for such a variant “is more likely to be wrong than right,” researchers reported in the BMJ.

The authors explained that SNP chips are “DNA microarrays that test genetic variation at many hundreds of thousands of specific locations across the genome.” Although SNP chips have proven accurate in identifying common variants, past reports have suggested that SNP chips perform poorly for genotyping rare variants.

To gain more insight, Caroline Wright, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues conducted a large study.

The researchers analyzed data on 49,908 people from the UK Biobank who had SNP chip and next-generation sequencing results, as well as an additional 21 people who purchased consumer genetic tests and shared their data online via the Personal Genome Project.

The researchers compared the SNP chip and sequencing results. They also selected rare pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for detailed analysis of clinically actionable variants in the UK Biobank, and they assessed BRCA-related cancers in participants using cancer registry data.
 

Largest evaluation of SNP chips

SNP chips performed well for common variants, the researchers found. Sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value all exceeded 99% for 108,574 common variants.

For rare variants, SNP chips performed poorly, with a positive-predictive value of 16% for variants with a frequency below 0.001% in the UK Biobank.

“The study provides the largest evaluation of the performance of SNP chips for genotyping genetic variants at different frequencies in the population, particularly focusing on very rare variants,” Dr. Wright said. “The biggest surprise was how poorly the SNP chips we evaluated performed for rare variants.”

Dr. Wright noted that there is an inherent problem built into using SNP chip technology to genotype very rare variants.

“The SNP chip technology relies on clustering data from multiple individuals in order to determine what genotype each individual has at a specific position in their genome,” Dr. Wright explained. “Although this method works very well for common variants, the rarer the variant, the harder it is to distinguish from experimental noise.”
 

False positives and cancer: ‘Don’t trust the results’

The researchers found that, for rare BRCA variants (frequency below 0.01%), SNP chips had a sensitivity of 34.6%, specificity of 98.3%, negative-predictive value of 99.9%, and positive-predictive value of 4.2%.

Rates of BRCA-related cancers in patients with positive SNP chip results were similar to rates in age-matched control subjects because “the vast majority of variants were false positives,” the researchers noted.

“If these variants are incorrectly genotyped – that is, false positives detected – a woman could be offered screening or even prophylactic surgery inappropriately when she is more likely to be at population background risk [for BRCA-related cancers],” Dr. Wright said.

“For very-rare-disease–causing genetic variants, don’t trust the results from SNP chips; for example, those from direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Never use them to guide clinical action without diagnostic validation,” she added.

Heather Hampel, a genetic counselor and researcher at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center in Columbus, agreed.

“Positive results on SNP-based tests need to be confirmed by medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology,” she said. “Negative results on an SNP- based test cannot be considered to rule out mutations in BRCA1/2 or other cancer-susceptibility genes, so individuals with strong personal and family histories of cancer should be seen by a genetic counselor to consider medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology.”

Practicing oncologists can trust patients’ prior germline genetic test results if the testing was performed in a cancer genetics clinic, which uses sequencing-based technologies, Ms. Hampel noted.

“If the test was performed before 2013, there are likely new genes that have been discovered for which their patient was not tested, and repeat testing may be warranted,” Ms. Hampel said. “A referral to a cancer genetic counselor would be appropriate.”

Ms. Hampel disclosed relationships with Genome Medical, GI OnDemand, Invitae Genetics, and Promega. Dr. Wright and her coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The group’s research was conducted using the UK Biobank and the University of Exeter High-Performance Computing, with funding from the Wellcome Trust and the National Institute for Health Research.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips often fail to correctly identify rare variants, a large study suggests.

In fact, SNP chips are “extremely unreliable for genotyping very rare pathogenic variants,” and a positive result for such a variant “is more likely to be wrong than right,” researchers reported in the BMJ.

The authors explained that SNP chips are “DNA microarrays that test genetic variation at many hundreds of thousands of specific locations across the genome.” Although SNP chips have proven accurate in identifying common variants, past reports have suggested that SNP chips perform poorly for genotyping rare variants.

To gain more insight, Caroline Wright, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues conducted a large study.

The researchers analyzed data on 49,908 people from the UK Biobank who had SNP chip and next-generation sequencing results, as well as an additional 21 people who purchased consumer genetic tests and shared their data online via the Personal Genome Project.

The researchers compared the SNP chip and sequencing results. They also selected rare pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for detailed analysis of clinically actionable variants in the UK Biobank, and they assessed BRCA-related cancers in participants using cancer registry data.
 

Largest evaluation of SNP chips

SNP chips performed well for common variants, the researchers found. Sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value all exceeded 99% for 108,574 common variants.

For rare variants, SNP chips performed poorly, with a positive-predictive value of 16% for variants with a frequency below 0.001% in the UK Biobank.

“The study provides the largest evaluation of the performance of SNP chips for genotyping genetic variants at different frequencies in the population, particularly focusing on very rare variants,” Dr. Wright said. “The biggest surprise was how poorly the SNP chips we evaluated performed for rare variants.”

Dr. Wright noted that there is an inherent problem built into using SNP chip technology to genotype very rare variants.

“The SNP chip technology relies on clustering data from multiple individuals in order to determine what genotype each individual has at a specific position in their genome,” Dr. Wright explained. “Although this method works very well for common variants, the rarer the variant, the harder it is to distinguish from experimental noise.”
 

False positives and cancer: ‘Don’t trust the results’

The researchers found that, for rare BRCA variants (frequency below 0.01%), SNP chips had a sensitivity of 34.6%, specificity of 98.3%, negative-predictive value of 99.9%, and positive-predictive value of 4.2%.

Rates of BRCA-related cancers in patients with positive SNP chip results were similar to rates in age-matched control subjects because “the vast majority of variants were false positives,” the researchers noted.

“If these variants are incorrectly genotyped – that is, false positives detected – a woman could be offered screening or even prophylactic surgery inappropriately when she is more likely to be at population background risk [for BRCA-related cancers],” Dr. Wright said.

“For very-rare-disease–causing genetic variants, don’t trust the results from SNP chips; for example, those from direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Never use them to guide clinical action without diagnostic validation,” she added.

Heather Hampel, a genetic counselor and researcher at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center in Columbus, agreed.

“Positive results on SNP-based tests need to be confirmed by medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology,” she said. “Negative results on an SNP- based test cannot be considered to rule out mutations in BRCA1/2 or other cancer-susceptibility genes, so individuals with strong personal and family histories of cancer should be seen by a genetic counselor to consider medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology.”

Practicing oncologists can trust patients’ prior germline genetic test results if the testing was performed in a cancer genetics clinic, which uses sequencing-based technologies, Ms. Hampel noted.

“If the test was performed before 2013, there are likely new genes that have been discovered for which their patient was not tested, and repeat testing may be warranted,” Ms. Hampel said. “A referral to a cancer genetic counselor would be appropriate.”

Ms. Hampel disclosed relationships with Genome Medical, GI OnDemand, Invitae Genetics, and Promega. Dr. Wright and her coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The group’s research was conducted using the UK Biobank and the University of Exeter High-Performance Computing, with funding from the Wellcome Trust and the National Institute for Health Research.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips often fail to correctly identify rare variants, a large study suggests.

In fact, SNP chips are “extremely unreliable for genotyping very rare pathogenic variants,” and a positive result for such a variant “is more likely to be wrong than right,” researchers reported in the BMJ.

The authors explained that SNP chips are “DNA microarrays that test genetic variation at many hundreds of thousands of specific locations across the genome.” Although SNP chips have proven accurate in identifying common variants, past reports have suggested that SNP chips perform poorly for genotyping rare variants.

To gain more insight, Caroline Wright, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues conducted a large study.

The researchers analyzed data on 49,908 people from the UK Biobank who had SNP chip and next-generation sequencing results, as well as an additional 21 people who purchased consumer genetic tests and shared their data online via the Personal Genome Project.

The researchers compared the SNP chip and sequencing results. They also selected rare pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for detailed analysis of clinically actionable variants in the UK Biobank, and they assessed BRCA-related cancers in participants using cancer registry data.
 

Largest evaluation of SNP chips

SNP chips performed well for common variants, the researchers found. Sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value all exceeded 99% for 108,574 common variants.

For rare variants, SNP chips performed poorly, with a positive-predictive value of 16% for variants with a frequency below 0.001% in the UK Biobank.

“The study provides the largest evaluation of the performance of SNP chips for genotyping genetic variants at different frequencies in the population, particularly focusing on very rare variants,” Dr. Wright said. “The biggest surprise was how poorly the SNP chips we evaluated performed for rare variants.”

Dr. Wright noted that there is an inherent problem built into using SNP chip technology to genotype very rare variants.

“The SNP chip technology relies on clustering data from multiple individuals in order to determine what genotype each individual has at a specific position in their genome,” Dr. Wright explained. “Although this method works very well for common variants, the rarer the variant, the harder it is to distinguish from experimental noise.”
 

False positives and cancer: ‘Don’t trust the results’

The researchers found that, for rare BRCA variants (frequency below 0.01%), SNP chips had a sensitivity of 34.6%, specificity of 98.3%, negative-predictive value of 99.9%, and positive-predictive value of 4.2%.

Rates of BRCA-related cancers in patients with positive SNP chip results were similar to rates in age-matched control subjects because “the vast majority of variants were false positives,” the researchers noted.

“If these variants are incorrectly genotyped – that is, false positives detected – a woman could be offered screening or even prophylactic surgery inappropriately when she is more likely to be at population background risk [for BRCA-related cancers],” Dr. Wright said.

“For very-rare-disease–causing genetic variants, don’t trust the results from SNP chips; for example, those from direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Never use them to guide clinical action without diagnostic validation,” she added.

Heather Hampel, a genetic counselor and researcher at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center in Columbus, agreed.

“Positive results on SNP-based tests need to be confirmed by medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology,” she said. “Negative results on an SNP- based test cannot be considered to rule out mutations in BRCA1/2 or other cancer-susceptibility genes, so individuals with strong personal and family histories of cancer should be seen by a genetic counselor to consider medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology.”

Practicing oncologists can trust patients’ prior germline genetic test results if the testing was performed in a cancer genetics clinic, which uses sequencing-based technologies, Ms. Hampel noted.

“If the test was performed before 2013, there are likely new genes that have been discovered for which their patient was not tested, and repeat testing may be warranted,” Ms. Hampel said. “A referral to a cancer genetic counselor would be appropriate.”

Ms. Hampel disclosed relationships with Genome Medical, GI OnDemand, Invitae Genetics, and Promega. Dr. Wright and her coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The group’s research was conducted using the UK Biobank and the University of Exeter High-Performance Computing, with funding from the Wellcome Trust and the National Institute for Health Research.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .

A large, retrospective study shows how germline genetic testing has evolved over time in women with breast or ovarian cancer and reveals a path forward for testing these patients.

Investigators found racial and ethnic disparities in genetic testing as well as “persistent underuse” of testing in patients with ovarian cancer.

The team also discovered that most pathogenic variant (PV) results were in 20 genes associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer, and testing other genes largely revealed variants of uncertain significance (VUS).

Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues recounted these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Because of improvements in sequencing technology, competition among commercial purveyors, and declining cost, genetic testing has been increasingly available to clinicians for patient management and cancer prevention (JAMA. 2015 Sep 8;314[10]:997-8). Although germline testing can guide therapy for several solid tumors, there is little research about how often and how well it is used in practice.

For their study, Dr. Kurian and colleagues used a SEER Genetic Testing Linkage Demonstration Project in a population-based assessment of testing for cancer risk. The investigators analyzed 7-year trends in testing among all women diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in Georgia or California from 2013 to 2017, reviewing testing patterns and result interpretation from 2012 to 2019.

Before analyzing the data, the investigators made the following hypotheses:

• Multigene panels (MGP) would entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.
• Testing underutilization in patients with ovarian cancer would improve over time.
• More patients would be tested at lower levels of pretest risk for PVs.
• Sociodemographic differences in testing trends would not be observed.
• Detection of PVs and VUS would increase.
• Racial and ethnic disparities in rates of VUS would diminish.

Study conduct

The investigators examined genetic tests performed from 2012 through the beginning of 2019 at major commercial laboratories and linked that information with data in the SEER registries in Georgia and California on all breast and ovarian cancer patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017. There were few criteria for exclusion.

Genetic testing results were categorized as identifying a PV or likely PV, VUS, or benign or likely benign mutation by American College of Medical Genetics criteria. When a patient had genetic testing on more than one occasion, the most recent test was used.

If a PV was identified, the types of PVs were grouped according to the level of evidence that supported pathogenicity into the following categories:

• BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
• PVs in other genes designated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as associated with breast or ovarian cancer (e.g., ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PALB2, MS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).
• PVs in other actionable genes (e.g., APC, BMPR1A, MEN1, MUTYH, NF2, RB1, RET, SDHAF2, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, SMAD4, TSC1, TSC2, and VHL).
• Any other tested genes.

The investigators also tabulated instances in which genetic testing identified a VUS in any gene but no PV. If a VUS was identified originally and was reclassified more recently into the “PV/likely PV” or “benign/likely benign” categories, only the resolved categorization was recorded.

The authors evaluated clinical and sociodemographic correlates of testing trends for breast and ovarian cancer, assessing the relationship between race, age, and geographic site in receipt of any test or type of test.

Among laboratories, the investigators examined trends in the number of genes tested, associations with sociodemographic factors, categories of test results, and whether trends differed by race or ethnicity.
 

Findings, by hypothesis

Hypothesis #1: MGP will entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.

About 25% of tested patients with breast cancer diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 80% of those diagnosed in late 2017.

The trend for ovarian cancer was similar. About 40% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 90% diagnosed in late 2017. These trends were similar in California and Georgia.

From 2012 to 2019, there was a consistent upward trend in gene number for patients with breast cancer (mean, 19) or ovarian cancer (mean, 21), from approximately 10 genes to 35 genes.
 

Hypothesis #2: Underutilization of testing in patients with ovarian cancer will improve.

Among the 187,535 patients with breast cancer and the 14,689 patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed in Georgia or California from 2013 through 2017, on average, testing rates increased 2% per year.

In all, 25.2% of breast cancer patients and 34.3% of ovarian cancer patients had genetic testing on one (87.3%) or more (12.7%) occasions.

Prior research suggested that, in 2013 and 2014, 31% of women with ovarian cancer had genetic testing (JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;4[8]:1066-72/ J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15).

The investigators therefore concluded that underutilization of genetic testing in ovarian cancer did not improve substantially during the 7-year interval analyzed.
 

Hypothesis #3: More patients will be tested at lower levels of pretest risk.

These data were more difficult to abstract from the SEER database, but older patients were more likely to be tested in later years.

In patients older than 60 years of age (who accounted for more than 50% of both cancer cohorts), testing rates increased from 11.1% to 14.9% for breast cancer and 25.3% to 31.4% for ovarian cancer. By contrast, patients younger than 45 years of age were less than 15% of the sample and had lower testing rates over time.

There were no substantial changes in testing rates by other clinical variables. Therefore, in concert with the age-related testing trends, it is likely that women were tested for genetic mutations at increasingly lower levels of pretest risk.
 

Hypothesis #4: Sociodemographic differences in testing trends will not be observed.

Among patients with breast cancer, approximately 31% of those who had genetic testing were uninsured, 31% had Medicaid, and 26% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

For patients with ovarian cancer, approximately 28% were uninsured, 27% had Medicaid, and 39% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

The authors had previously found that less testing was associated with Black race, greater poverty, and less insurance coverage (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15). However, they noted no changes in testing rates by sociodemographic variables over time.
 

Hypothesis #5: Detection of both PVs and VUS will increase.

The proportion of tested breast cancer patients with PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 7.5% to 5.0% (P < .001), whereas PV yield for the two other clinically salient categories (breast or ovarian and other actionable genes) increased.

The proportion of PVs in any breast or ovarian gene increased from 1.3% to 4.6%, and the proportion in any other actionable gene increased from 0.3% to 1.3%.

For breast cancer patients, VUS-only rates increased from 8.5% in early 2013 to 22.4% in late 2017.

For ovarian cancer patients, the yield of PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 15.7% to 12.4% (P < .001), whereas the PV yield for breast or ovarian genes increased from 3.9% to 4.3%, and the yield for other actionable genes increased from 0.3% to 2.0%.

In ovarian cancer patients, the PV or VUS-only result rate increased from 30.8% in early 2013 to 43.0% in late 2017, entirely due to the increase in VUS-only rates. VUS were identified in 8.1% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 and increased to 28.3% in patients diagnosed in late 2017.
 

Hypothesis #6: Racial or ethnic disparities in rates of VUS will diminish.

Among patients with breast cancer, racial or ethnic differences in PV rates were small and did not change over time. For patients with ovarian cancer, PV rates across racial or ethnic groups diminished over time.

However, for both breast and ovarian cancer patients, there were large differences in VUS-only rates by race and ethnicity that persisted during the interval studied.

In 2017, for patients with breast cancer, VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (42.4%), Black (36.6%), and Hispanic (27.7%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.5%, P < .001).

Similar trends were noted for patients with ovarian cancer. VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (47.8%), Black (46.0%), and Hispanic (36.8%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.6%, P < .001).

Multivariable logistic regressions were performed separately for tested patients with breast cancer and ovarian cancer, and the results showed no significant interaction between race or ethnicity and date. Therefore, there was no significant change in racial or ethnic differences in VUS-only results across the study period.
 

Where these findings leave clinicians in 2021

Among the patients studied, there was:

• Marked expansion in the number of genes sequenced.
• A likely modest trend toward testing patients with lower pretest risk of a PV.
• No sociodemographic differences in testing trends.
• A small increase in PV rates and a substantial increase in VUS-only rates.
• Near-complete replacement of selective testing by MGP.

For patients with breast cancer, the proportion of all PVs that were in BRCA1/2 fell substantially. Adoption of MGP testing doubled the probability of detecting a PV in other tested genes. Most of the increase was in genes with an established breast or ovarian cancer association, with fewer PVs found in other actionable genes and very few PVs in other tested genes.

Contrary to their hypothesis, the authors observed a sustained undertesting of patients with ovarian cancer. Only 34.3% performed versus nearly 100% recommended, with little change since 2014.

This finding is surprising – and tremendously disappointing – since the prevalence of BRCA1/2 PVs is higher in ovarian cancer than in other cancers (Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;147[2]:375-380), and germline-targeted therapy with PARP inhibitors has been approved for use since 2014.

Furthermore, insurance carriers provide coverage for genetic testing in most patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tube, and/or peritoneum.
 

Action plans: Less could be more

During the period analyzed, the increase in VUS-only results dramatically outpaced the increase in PVs.

Since there is a substantially larger volume of clinical genetic testing in non-Hispanic White patients with breast or ovarian cancer, the spectrum of normal variation is less well-defined in other racial or ethnic groups.

The study showed a widening of the “racial-ethnic VUS gap,” with Black and Asian patients having nearly twofold more VUS, although they were not tested for more genes than non-Hispanic White patients.

This is problematic on several levels. Identification of a VUS is challenging for communicating results to and recommending cascade testing for family members.

There is worrisome information regarding overtreatment or counseling of VUS patients about their results. For example, the PROMPT registry showed that 10%-15% of women with PV/VUS in genes not associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer underwent oophorectomy without a clear indication for the procedure.

Although population-based testing might augment the available data on the spectrum of normal variation in racial and ethnic minorities, it would likely exacerbate the proliferation of VUS over PVs.

It is essential to accelerate ongoing approaches to VUS reclassification.

In addition, the authors suggest that it may be time to reverse the trend in increasing the number of genes tested in MGPs. Their rationale is that, in Georgia and California, most PVs among patients with breast and ovarian cancer were identified in 20 genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PMS2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).

If the Georgia and California data are representative of a more generalized pattern, a panel of 20 breast cancer– and/or ovarian cancer–associated genes may be ideal for maximizing the yield of clinically relevant PVs and minimizing VUS results for all patients.

Finally, defining the patient, clinician, and health care system factors that impede widespread genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients must be prioritized. As the authors suggest, quality improvement efforts should focus on getting a lot closer to testing rates of 100% for patients with ovarian cancer and building the database that will help sort VUS in minority patients into their proper context of pathogenicity, rather than adding more genes per test.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the California Department of Public Health. The authors disclosed relationships with Myriad Genetics, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, InVitae, Genentech, Genomic Health, Roche/Genentech, Oncoquest, Tesaro, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

A large, retrospective study shows how germline genetic testing has evolved over time in women with breast or ovarian cancer and reveals a path forward for testing these patients.

Investigators found racial and ethnic disparities in genetic testing as well as “persistent underuse” of testing in patients with ovarian cancer.

The team also discovered that most pathogenic variant (PV) results were in 20 genes associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer, and testing other genes largely revealed variants of uncertain significance (VUS).

Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues recounted these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Because of improvements in sequencing technology, competition among commercial purveyors, and declining cost, genetic testing has been increasingly available to clinicians for patient management and cancer prevention (JAMA. 2015 Sep 8;314[10]:997-8). Although germline testing can guide therapy for several solid tumors, there is little research about how often and how well it is used in practice.

For their study, Dr. Kurian and colleagues used a SEER Genetic Testing Linkage Demonstration Project in a population-based assessment of testing for cancer risk. The investigators analyzed 7-year trends in testing among all women diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in Georgia or California from 2013 to 2017, reviewing testing patterns and result interpretation from 2012 to 2019.

Before analyzing the data, the investigators made the following hypotheses:

• Multigene panels (MGP) would entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.
• Testing underutilization in patients with ovarian cancer would improve over time.
• More patients would be tested at lower levels of pretest risk for PVs.
• Sociodemographic differences in testing trends would not be observed.
• Detection of PVs and VUS would increase.
• Racial and ethnic disparities in rates of VUS would diminish.

Study conduct

The investigators examined genetic tests performed from 2012 through the beginning of 2019 at major commercial laboratories and linked that information with data in the SEER registries in Georgia and California on all breast and ovarian cancer patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017. There were few criteria for exclusion.

Genetic testing results were categorized as identifying a PV or likely PV, VUS, or benign or likely benign mutation by American College of Medical Genetics criteria. When a patient had genetic testing on more than one occasion, the most recent test was used.

If a PV was identified, the types of PVs were grouped according to the level of evidence that supported pathogenicity into the following categories:

• BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
• PVs in other genes designated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as associated with breast or ovarian cancer (e.g., ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PALB2, MS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).
• PVs in other actionable genes (e.g., APC, BMPR1A, MEN1, MUTYH, NF2, RB1, RET, SDHAF2, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, SMAD4, TSC1, TSC2, and VHL).
• Any other tested genes.

The investigators also tabulated instances in which genetic testing identified a VUS in any gene but no PV. If a VUS was identified originally and was reclassified more recently into the “PV/likely PV” or “benign/likely benign” categories, only the resolved categorization was recorded.

The authors evaluated clinical and sociodemographic correlates of testing trends for breast and ovarian cancer, assessing the relationship between race, age, and geographic site in receipt of any test or type of test.

Among laboratories, the investigators examined trends in the number of genes tested, associations with sociodemographic factors, categories of test results, and whether trends differed by race or ethnicity.
 

Findings, by hypothesis

Hypothesis #1: MGP will entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.

About 25% of tested patients with breast cancer diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 80% of those diagnosed in late 2017.

The trend for ovarian cancer was similar. About 40% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 90% diagnosed in late 2017. These trends were similar in California and Georgia.

From 2012 to 2019, there was a consistent upward trend in gene number for patients with breast cancer (mean, 19) or ovarian cancer (mean, 21), from approximately 10 genes to 35 genes.
 

Hypothesis #2: Underutilization of testing in patients with ovarian cancer will improve.

Among the 187,535 patients with breast cancer and the 14,689 patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed in Georgia or California from 2013 through 2017, on average, testing rates increased 2% per year.

In all, 25.2% of breast cancer patients and 34.3% of ovarian cancer patients had genetic testing on one (87.3%) or more (12.7%) occasions.

Prior research suggested that, in 2013 and 2014, 31% of women with ovarian cancer had genetic testing (JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;4[8]:1066-72/ J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15).

The investigators therefore concluded that underutilization of genetic testing in ovarian cancer did not improve substantially during the 7-year interval analyzed.
 

Hypothesis #3: More patients will be tested at lower levels of pretest risk.

These data were more difficult to abstract from the SEER database, but older patients were more likely to be tested in later years.

In patients older than 60 years of age (who accounted for more than 50% of both cancer cohorts), testing rates increased from 11.1% to 14.9% for breast cancer and 25.3% to 31.4% for ovarian cancer. By contrast, patients younger than 45 years of age were less than 15% of the sample and had lower testing rates over time.

There were no substantial changes in testing rates by other clinical variables. Therefore, in concert with the age-related testing trends, it is likely that women were tested for genetic mutations at increasingly lower levels of pretest risk.
 

Hypothesis #4: Sociodemographic differences in testing trends will not be observed.

Among patients with breast cancer, approximately 31% of those who had genetic testing were uninsured, 31% had Medicaid, and 26% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

For patients with ovarian cancer, approximately 28% were uninsured, 27% had Medicaid, and 39% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

The authors had previously found that less testing was associated with Black race, greater poverty, and less insurance coverage (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15). However, they noted no changes in testing rates by sociodemographic variables over time.
 

Hypothesis #5: Detection of both PVs and VUS will increase.

The proportion of tested breast cancer patients with PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 7.5% to 5.0% (P < .001), whereas PV yield for the two other clinically salient categories (breast or ovarian and other actionable genes) increased.

The proportion of PVs in any breast or ovarian gene increased from 1.3% to 4.6%, and the proportion in any other actionable gene increased from 0.3% to 1.3%.

For breast cancer patients, VUS-only rates increased from 8.5% in early 2013 to 22.4% in late 2017.

For ovarian cancer patients, the yield of PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 15.7% to 12.4% (P < .001), whereas the PV yield for breast or ovarian genes increased from 3.9% to 4.3%, and the yield for other actionable genes increased from 0.3% to 2.0%.

In ovarian cancer patients, the PV or VUS-only result rate increased from 30.8% in early 2013 to 43.0% in late 2017, entirely due to the increase in VUS-only rates. VUS were identified in 8.1% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 and increased to 28.3% in patients diagnosed in late 2017.
 

Hypothesis #6: Racial or ethnic disparities in rates of VUS will diminish.

Among patients with breast cancer, racial or ethnic differences in PV rates were small and did not change over time. For patients with ovarian cancer, PV rates across racial or ethnic groups diminished over time.

However, for both breast and ovarian cancer patients, there were large differences in VUS-only rates by race and ethnicity that persisted during the interval studied.

In 2017, for patients with breast cancer, VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (42.4%), Black (36.6%), and Hispanic (27.7%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.5%, P < .001).

Similar trends were noted for patients with ovarian cancer. VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (47.8%), Black (46.0%), and Hispanic (36.8%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.6%, P < .001).

Multivariable logistic regressions were performed separately for tested patients with breast cancer and ovarian cancer, and the results showed no significant interaction between race or ethnicity and date. Therefore, there was no significant change in racial or ethnic differences in VUS-only results across the study period.
 

Where these findings leave clinicians in 2021

Among the patients studied, there was:

• Marked expansion in the number of genes sequenced.
• A likely modest trend toward testing patients with lower pretest risk of a PV.
• No sociodemographic differences in testing trends.
• A small increase in PV rates and a substantial increase in VUS-only rates.
• Near-complete replacement of selective testing by MGP.

For patients with breast cancer, the proportion of all PVs that were in BRCA1/2 fell substantially. Adoption of MGP testing doubled the probability of detecting a PV in other tested genes. Most of the increase was in genes with an established breast or ovarian cancer association, with fewer PVs found in other actionable genes and very few PVs in other tested genes.

Contrary to their hypothesis, the authors observed a sustained undertesting of patients with ovarian cancer. Only 34.3% performed versus nearly 100% recommended, with little change since 2014.

This finding is surprising – and tremendously disappointing – since the prevalence of BRCA1/2 PVs is higher in ovarian cancer than in other cancers (Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;147[2]:375-380), and germline-targeted therapy with PARP inhibitors has been approved for use since 2014.

Furthermore, insurance carriers provide coverage for genetic testing in most patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tube, and/or peritoneum.
 

Action plans: Less could be more

During the period analyzed, the increase in VUS-only results dramatically outpaced the increase in PVs.

Since there is a substantially larger volume of clinical genetic testing in non-Hispanic White patients with breast or ovarian cancer, the spectrum of normal variation is less well-defined in other racial or ethnic groups.

The study showed a widening of the “racial-ethnic VUS gap,” with Black and Asian patients having nearly twofold more VUS, although they were not tested for more genes than non-Hispanic White patients.

This is problematic on several levels. Identification of a VUS is challenging for communicating results to and recommending cascade testing for family members.

There is worrisome information regarding overtreatment or counseling of VUS patients about their results. For example, the PROMPT registry showed that 10%-15% of women with PV/VUS in genes not associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer underwent oophorectomy without a clear indication for the procedure.

Although population-based testing might augment the available data on the spectrum of normal variation in racial and ethnic minorities, it would likely exacerbate the proliferation of VUS over PVs.

It is essential to accelerate ongoing approaches to VUS reclassification.

In addition, the authors suggest that it may be time to reverse the trend in increasing the number of genes tested in MGPs. Their rationale is that, in Georgia and California, most PVs among patients with breast and ovarian cancer were identified in 20 genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PMS2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).

If the Georgia and California data are representative of a more generalized pattern, a panel of 20 breast cancer– and/or ovarian cancer–associated genes may be ideal for maximizing the yield of clinically relevant PVs and minimizing VUS results for all patients.

Finally, defining the patient, clinician, and health care system factors that impede widespread genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients must be prioritized. As the authors suggest, quality improvement efforts should focus on getting a lot closer to testing rates of 100% for patients with ovarian cancer and building the database that will help sort VUS in minority patients into their proper context of pathogenicity, rather than adding more genes per test.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the California Department of Public Health. The authors disclosed relationships with Myriad Genetics, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, InVitae, Genentech, Genomic Health, Roche/Genentech, Oncoquest, Tesaro, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

A large, retrospective study shows how germline genetic testing has evolved over time in women with breast or ovarian cancer and reveals a path forward for testing these patients.

Investigators found racial and ethnic disparities in genetic testing as well as “persistent underuse” of testing in patients with ovarian cancer.

The team also discovered that most pathogenic variant (PV) results were in 20 genes associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer, and testing other genes largely revealed variants of uncertain significance (VUS).

Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues recounted these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Because of improvements in sequencing technology, competition among commercial purveyors, and declining cost, genetic testing has been increasingly available to clinicians for patient management and cancer prevention (JAMA. 2015 Sep 8;314[10]:997-8). Although germline testing can guide therapy for several solid tumors, there is little research about how often and how well it is used in practice.

For their study, Dr. Kurian and colleagues used a SEER Genetic Testing Linkage Demonstration Project in a population-based assessment of testing for cancer risk. The investigators analyzed 7-year trends in testing among all women diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in Georgia or California from 2013 to 2017, reviewing testing patterns and result interpretation from 2012 to 2019.

Before analyzing the data, the investigators made the following hypotheses:

• Multigene panels (MGP) would entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.
• Testing underutilization in patients with ovarian cancer would improve over time.
• More patients would be tested at lower levels of pretest risk for PVs.
• Sociodemographic differences in testing trends would not be observed.
• Detection of PVs and VUS would increase.
• Racial and ethnic disparities in rates of VUS would diminish.

Study conduct

The investigators examined genetic tests performed from 2012 through the beginning of 2019 at major commercial laboratories and linked that information with data in the SEER registries in Georgia and California on all breast and ovarian cancer patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017. There were few criteria for exclusion.

Genetic testing results were categorized as identifying a PV or likely PV, VUS, or benign or likely benign mutation by American College of Medical Genetics criteria. When a patient had genetic testing on more than one occasion, the most recent test was used.

If a PV was identified, the types of PVs were grouped according to the level of evidence that supported pathogenicity into the following categories:

• BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
• PVs in other genes designated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as associated with breast or ovarian cancer (e.g., ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PALB2, MS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).
• PVs in other actionable genes (e.g., APC, BMPR1A, MEN1, MUTYH, NF2, RB1, RET, SDHAF2, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, SMAD4, TSC1, TSC2, and VHL).
• Any other tested genes.

The investigators also tabulated instances in which genetic testing identified a VUS in any gene but no PV. If a VUS was identified originally and was reclassified more recently into the “PV/likely PV” or “benign/likely benign” categories, only the resolved categorization was recorded.

The authors evaluated clinical and sociodemographic correlates of testing trends for breast and ovarian cancer, assessing the relationship between race, age, and geographic site in receipt of any test or type of test.

Among laboratories, the investigators examined trends in the number of genes tested, associations with sociodemographic factors, categories of test results, and whether trends differed by race or ethnicity.
 

Findings, by hypothesis

Hypothesis #1: MGP will entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.

About 25% of tested patients with breast cancer diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 80% of those diagnosed in late 2017.

The trend for ovarian cancer was similar. About 40% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 90% diagnosed in late 2017. These trends were similar in California and Georgia.

From 2012 to 2019, there was a consistent upward trend in gene number for patients with breast cancer (mean, 19) or ovarian cancer (mean, 21), from approximately 10 genes to 35 genes.
 

Hypothesis #2: Underutilization of testing in patients with ovarian cancer will improve.

Among the 187,535 patients with breast cancer and the 14,689 patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed in Georgia or California from 2013 through 2017, on average, testing rates increased 2% per year.

In all, 25.2% of breast cancer patients and 34.3% of ovarian cancer patients had genetic testing on one (87.3%) or more (12.7%) occasions.

Prior research suggested that, in 2013 and 2014, 31% of women with ovarian cancer had genetic testing (JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;4[8]:1066-72/ J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15).

The investigators therefore concluded that underutilization of genetic testing in ovarian cancer did not improve substantially during the 7-year interval analyzed.
 

Hypothesis #3: More patients will be tested at lower levels of pretest risk.

These data were more difficult to abstract from the SEER database, but older patients were more likely to be tested in later years.

In patients older than 60 years of age (who accounted for more than 50% of both cancer cohorts), testing rates increased from 11.1% to 14.9% for breast cancer and 25.3% to 31.4% for ovarian cancer. By contrast, patients younger than 45 years of age were less than 15% of the sample and had lower testing rates over time.

There were no substantial changes in testing rates by other clinical variables. Therefore, in concert with the age-related testing trends, it is likely that women were tested for genetic mutations at increasingly lower levels of pretest risk.
 

Hypothesis #4: Sociodemographic differences in testing trends will not be observed.

Among patients with breast cancer, approximately 31% of those who had genetic testing were uninsured, 31% had Medicaid, and 26% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

For patients with ovarian cancer, approximately 28% were uninsured, 27% had Medicaid, and 39% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

The authors had previously found that less testing was associated with Black race, greater poverty, and less insurance coverage (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15). However, they noted no changes in testing rates by sociodemographic variables over time.
 

Hypothesis #5: Detection of both PVs and VUS will increase.

The proportion of tested breast cancer patients with PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 7.5% to 5.0% (P < .001), whereas PV yield for the two other clinically salient categories (breast or ovarian and other actionable genes) increased.

The proportion of PVs in any breast or ovarian gene increased from 1.3% to 4.6%, and the proportion in any other actionable gene increased from 0.3% to 1.3%.

For breast cancer patients, VUS-only rates increased from 8.5% in early 2013 to 22.4% in late 2017.

For ovarian cancer patients, the yield of PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 15.7% to 12.4% (P < .001), whereas the PV yield for breast or ovarian genes increased from 3.9% to 4.3%, and the yield for other actionable genes increased from 0.3% to 2.0%.

In ovarian cancer patients, the PV or VUS-only result rate increased from 30.8% in early 2013 to 43.0% in late 2017, entirely due to the increase in VUS-only rates. VUS were identified in 8.1% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 and increased to 28.3% in patients diagnosed in late 2017.
 

Hypothesis #6: Racial or ethnic disparities in rates of VUS will diminish.

Among patients with breast cancer, racial or ethnic differences in PV rates were small and did not change over time. For patients with ovarian cancer, PV rates across racial or ethnic groups diminished over time.

However, for both breast and ovarian cancer patients, there were large differences in VUS-only rates by race and ethnicity that persisted during the interval studied.

In 2017, for patients with breast cancer, VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (42.4%), Black (36.6%), and Hispanic (27.7%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.5%, P < .001).

Similar trends were noted for patients with ovarian cancer. VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (47.8%), Black (46.0%), and Hispanic (36.8%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.6%, P < .001).

Multivariable logistic regressions were performed separately for tested patients with breast cancer and ovarian cancer, and the results showed no significant interaction between race or ethnicity and date. Therefore, there was no significant change in racial or ethnic differences in VUS-only results across the study period.
 

Where these findings leave clinicians in 2021

Among the patients studied, there was:

• Marked expansion in the number of genes sequenced.
• A likely modest trend toward testing patients with lower pretest risk of a PV.
• No sociodemographic differences in testing trends.
• A small increase in PV rates and a substantial increase in VUS-only rates.
• Near-complete replacement of selective testing by MGP.

For patients with breast cancer, the proportion of all PVs that were in BRCA1/2 fell substantially. Adoption of MGP testing doubled the probability of detecting a PV in other tested genes. Most of the increase was in genes with an established breast or ovarian cancer association, with fewer PVs found in other actionable genes and very few PVs in other tested genes.

Contrary to their hypothesis, the authors observed a sustained undertesting of patients with ovarian cancer. Only 34.3% performed versus nearly 100% recommended, with little change since 2014.

This finding is surprising – and tremendously disappointing – since the prevalence of BRCA1/2 PVs is higher in ovarian cancer than in other cancers (Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;147[2]:375-380), and germline-targeted therapy with PARP inhibitors has been approved for use since 2014.

Furthermore, insurance carriers provide coverage for genetic testing in most patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tube, and/or peritoneum.
 

Action plans: Less could be more

During the period analyzed, the increase in VUS-only results dramatically outpaced the increase in PVs.

Since there is a substantially larger volume of clinical genetic testing in non-Hispanic White patients with breast or ovarian cancer, the spectrum of normal variation is less well-defined in other racial or ethnic groups.

The study showed a widening of the “racial-ethnic VUS gap,” with Black and Asian patients having nearly twofold more VUS, although they were not tested for more genes than non-Hispanic White patients.

This is problematic on several levels. Identification of a VUS is challenging for communicating results to and recommending cascade testing for family members.

There is worrisome information regarding overtreatment or counseling of VUS patients about their results. For example, the PROMPT registry showed that 10%-15% of women with PV/VUS in genes not associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer underwent oophorectomy without a clear indication for the procedure.

Although population-based testing might augment the available data on the spectrum of normal variation in racial and ethnic minorities, it would likely exacerbate the proliferation of VUS over PVs.

It is essential to accelerate ongoing approaches to VUS reclassification.

In addition, the authors suggest that it may be time to reverse the trend in increasing the number of genes tested in MGPs. Their rationale is that, in Georgia and California, most PVs among patients with breast and ovarian cancer were identified in 20 genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PMS2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).

If the Georgia and California data are representative of a more generalized pattern, a panel of 20 breast cancer– and/or ovarian cancer–associated genes may be ideal for maximizing the yield of clinically relevant PVs and minimizing VUS results for all patients.

Finally, defining the patient, clinician, and health care system factors that impede widespread genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients must be prioritized. As the authors suggest, quality improvement efforts should focus on getting a lot closer to testing rates of 100% for patients with ovarian cancer and building the database that will help sort VUS in minority patients into their proper context of pathogenicity, rather than adding more genes per test.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the California Department of Public Health. The authors disclosed relationships with Myriad Genetics, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, InVitae, Genentech, Genomic Health, Roche/Genentech, Oncoquest, Tesaro, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

New guidelines from the American Society of Hematology “strongly recommend” using no thromboprophylaxis over using parenteral thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy who have low venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, and using no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists in those at any VTE risk level.

The evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patient with cancer, published online in Blood Advances, also include a “conditional recommendation” for using either thromboprophylaxis with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban or rivaroxaban or using no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with intermediate risk and using the DOACs over no thromboprophylaxis in those with high VTE risk.

The purpose of the guidelines, which also address VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer and the use of anticoagulation for VTE treatment in patients with cancer, is to provide clinical decision support for shared decision-making by patients and clinicians, Gary H. Lyman, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle and Marc Carrier, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and their colleagues from the multidisciplinary guidelines panel explained.

“The recommendations take into consideration the strength of the evidence, risks of mortality, VTE, and bleeding, as well as quality of life, acceptability, and cost considerations,” they wrote, noting that VTE is a common complication in patients with cancer, who are at markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality from VTE.
 

Levels of evidence

The panel members relied on updated and original systematic evidence reviews. Conditional recommendations, as opposed to strong recommendations, are defined by the panel as “suggestions,” and all 33 recommendations that make up the guidelines include a statement on the strength of the relevant evidence.

For example, the thromboprophylaxis recommendations for low, intermediate, and high VTE risk are made based on “moderate certainty in the evidence of effects,” and the recommendation for no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists is a strong recommendation based on “very low certainty in the evidence of benefits, but high certainty about the harms.”

The guidelines panel also strongly recommends, based on moderate certainty in the evidence of effects, using low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and suggests, based on “very low certainty in the evidence of effects,” using LMWH over fondaparinux in this setting.

In addition to primary prophylaxis in ambulatory and hospitalized patients and initial VTE treatment, they also address primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer who have a central venous catheter, VTE treatment in surgical patients with cancer, short-term VTE treatment, and long-term VTE treatment.

For example, the guidelines panel conditionally recommends:

• Not using parenteral or oral thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer and a central venous catheter
• Using LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer
• Using DOACS for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOACs for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

The perils of VTE

VTE in patients with cancer can interfere with treatment, increase mortality risk, and increase costs, the authors noted, adding that VTE can also adversely affect cancer patients’ quality of life.

“Some have even reported the experience of VTE to be more upsetting than that of the cancer,” they wrote. “More than 50% of thrombotic events occur within 3 months of the cancer diagnosis, a time when most cancer treatments will be underway. Patients, who are still coming to terms with a recent cancer diagnosis, often view the occurrence of VTE as a further threat to life, confirmation of the severity of their condition, and a poor prognostic sign.”

Therefore, the new guidelines aim to reduce VTE frequency, risk of bleeding complications, morbidity, and costs, thereby improving quality of life and the patient experience, the authors said, noting that three other recent guidelines on VTEs in patients with cancer have been published: the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, the 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer guidelines, and the 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

The ASH guidelines are similar in many ways to the other guidelines, but differ in some ways, as well. An example is the timing of initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related major abdominal surgery. The ASCO and ITAC guidelines advise starting thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, whereas the ASH guidelines recommend initiating thromboprophylaxis postoperatively, citing “the limited advantages to initiating thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, in addition to the potential bleeding and logistical considerations associated with neuraxial anesthesia.”

These differences highlight a lack of data in that setting and the need for additional studies, the authors said.
 

ASH vs. ASCO

James Douketis, MD, a practicing clinician and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., highlighted another difference between the ASH and ASCO guidelines.

“For the treatment of [cancer-associated thrombosis], ASCO gives a strong recommendation to use LMWH or DOACs (with some caveats), which is easy to follow. ASH, on the other hand, suggests LMWH or a DOAC for the first 7-10 days, DOACs for the first 3-6 months, and back to LMWH or DOACs after 6 months,” he said in an interview.

The recommendation is “very evidence based but ambiguous and not helpful for the practicing clinician,” added Dr. Douketis, who helped develop the ITAC guidelines, but was not part of the ASH or ASCO guideline panels.

ASCO also provides a clear recommendation for giving VTE prophylaxis for 4 weeks after cancer surgery in patients with high VTE risk, whereas ASH gives “a somewhat vague recommendation” for thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge.

The guidelines are “pretty well aligned” with respect to recommendations on VTE prophylaxis in medical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and although the “extremely academic” ASH guidelines were developed by “a superb team using the same evidence and excellent methodology,” they are interpreted in slightly different ways and fall short when it comes to being clinician friendly, Dr. Douketis said.

“At the end of day, for practicing clinicians, the ASH guidelines don’t provide a message that’s easy to digest,” he added.

ASH has, however, provided a resource page that includes tools and information for implementing the guidelines in clinical practice, and will maintain the guidelines “through surveillance for new evidence, ongoing review by experts, and regular revisions,” the authors said.

[email protected]

New guidelines from the American Society of Hematology “strongly recommend” using no thromboprophylaxis over using parenteral thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy who have low venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, and using no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists in those at any VTE risk level.

The evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patient with cancer, published online in Blood Advances, also include a “conditional recommendation” for using either thromboprophylaxis with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban or rivaroxaban or using no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with intermediate risk and using the DOACs over no thromboprophylaxis in those with high VTE risk.

The purpose of the guidelines, which also address VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer and the use of anticoagulation for VTE treatment in patients with cancer, is to provide clinical decision support for shared decision-making by patients and clinicians, Gary H. Lyman, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle and Marc Carrier, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and their colleagues from the multidisciplinary guidelines panel explained.

“The recommendations take into consideration the strength of the evidence, risks of mortality, VTE, and bleeding, as well as quality of life, acceptability, and cost considerations,” they wrote, noting that VTE is a common complication in patients with cancer, who are at markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality from VTE.
 

Levels of evidence

The panel members relied on updated and original systematic evidence reviews. Conditional recommendations, as opposed to strong recommendations, are defined by the panel as “suggestions,” and all 33 recommendations that make up the guidelines include a statement on the strength of the relevant evidence.

For example, the thromboprophylaxis recommendations for low, intermediate, and high VTE risk are made based on “moderate certainty in the evidence of effects,” and the recommendation for no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists is a strong recommendation based on “very low certainty in the evidence of benefits, but high certainty about the harms.”

The guidelines panel also strongly recommends, based on moderate certainty in the evidence of effects, using low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and suggests, based on “very low certainty in the evidence of effects,” using LMWH over fondaparinux in this setting.

In addition to primary prophylaxis in ambulatory and hospitalized patients and initial VTE treatment, they also address primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer who have a central venous catheter, VTE treatment in surgical patients with cancer, short-term VTE treatment, and long-term VTE treatment.

For example, the guidelines panel conditionally recommends:

• Not using parenteral or oral thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer and a central venous catheter
• Using LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer
• Using DOACS for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOACs for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

The perils of VTE

VTE in patients with cancer can interfere with treatment, increase mortality risk, and increase costs, the authors noted, adding that VTE can also adversely affect cancer patients’ quality of life.

“Some have even reported the experience of VTE to be more upsetting than that of the cancer,” they wrote. “More than 50% of thrombotic events occur within 3 months of the cancer diagnosis, a time when most cancer treatments will be underway. Patients, who are still coming to terms with a recent cancer diagnosis, often view the occurrence of VTE as a further threat to life, confirmation of the severity of their condition, and a poor prognostic sign.”

Therefore, the new guidelines aim to reduce VTE frequency, risk of bleeding complications, morbidity, and costs, thereby improving quality of life and the patient experience, the authors said, noting that three other recent guidelines on VTEs in patients with cancer have been published: the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, the 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer guidelines, and the 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

The ASH guidelines are similar in many ways to the other guidelines, but differ in some ways, as well. An example is the timing of initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related major abdominal surgery. The ASCO and ITAC guidelines advise starting thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, whereas the ASH guidelines recommend initiating thromboprophylaxis postoperatively, citing “the limited advantages to initiating thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, in addition to the potential bleeding and logistical considerations associated with neuraxial anesthesia.”

These differences highlight a lack of data in that setting and the need for additional studies, the authors said.
 

ASH vs. ASCO

James Douketis, MD, a practicing clinician and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., highlighted another difference between the ASH and ASCO guidelines.

“For the treatment of [cancer-associated thrombosis], ASCO gives a strong recommendation to use LMWH or DOACs (with some caveats), which is easy to follow. ASH, on the other hand, suggests LMWH or a DOAC for the first 7-10 days, DOACs for the first 3-6 months, and back to LMWH or DOACs after 6 months,” he said in an interview.

The recommendation is “very evidence based but ambiguous and not helpful for the practicing clinician,” added Dr. Douketis, who helped develop the ITAC guidelines, but was not part of the ASH or ASCO guideline panels.

ASCO also provides a clear recommendation for giving VTE prophylaxis for 4 weeks after cancer surgery in patients with high VTE risk, whereas ASH gives “a somewhat vague recommendation” for thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge.

The guidelines are “pretty well aligned” with respect to recommendations on VTE prophylaxis in medical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and although the “extremely academic” ASH guidelines were developed by “a superb team using the same evidence and excellent methodology,” they are interpreted in slightly different ways and fall short when it comes to being clinician friendly, Dr. Douketis said.

“At the end of day, for practicing clinicians, the ASH guidelines don’t provide a message that’s easy to digest,” he added.

ASH has, however, provided a resource page that includes tools and information for implementing the guidelines in clinical practice, and will maintain the guidelines “through surveillance for new evidence, ongoing review by experts, and regular revisions,” the authors said.

[email protected]

New guidelines from the American Society of Hematology “strongly recommend” using no thromboprophylaxis over using parenteral thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy who have low venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, and using no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists in those at any VTE risk level.

The evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patient with cancer, published online in Blood Advances, also include a “conditional recommendation” for using either thromboprophylaxis with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban or rivaroxaban or using no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with intermediate risk and using the DOACs over no thromboprophylaxis in those with high VTE risk.

The purpose of the guidelines, which also address VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer and the use of anticoagulation for VTE treatment in patients with cancer, is to provide clinical decision support for shared decision-making by patients and clinicians, Gary H. Lyman, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle and Marc Carrier, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and their colleagues from the multidisciplinary guidelines panel explained.

“The recommendations take into consideration the strength of the evidence, risks of mortality, VTE, and bleeding, as well as quality of life, acceptability, and cost considerations,” they wrote, noting that VTE is a common complication in patients with cancer, who are at markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality from VTE.
 

Levels of evidence

The panel members relied on updated and original systematic evidence reviews. Conditional recommendations, as opposed to strong recommendations, are defined by the panel as “suggestions,” and all 33 recommendations that make up the guidelines include a statement on the strength of the relevant evidence.

For example, the thromboprophylaxis recommendations for low, intermediate, and high VTE risk are made based on “moderate certainty in the evidence of effects,” and the recommendation for no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists is a strong recommendation based on “very low certainty in the evidence of benefits, but high certainty about the harms.”

The guidelines panel also strongly recommends, based on moderate certainty in the evidence of effects, using low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and suggests, based on “very low certainty in the evidence of effects,” using LMWH over fondaparinux in this setting.

In addition to primary prophylaxis in ambulatory and hospitalized patients and initial VTE treatment, they also address primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer who have a central venous catheter, VTE treatment in surgical patients with cancer, short-term VTE treatment, and long-term VTE treatment.

For example, the guidelines panel conditionally recommends:

• Not using parenteral or oral thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer and a central venous catheter
• Using LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer
• Using DOACS for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOACs for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

The perils of VTE

VTE in patients with cancer can interfere with treatment, increase mortality risk, and increase costs, the authors noted, adding that VTE can also adversely affect cancer patients’ quality of life.

“Some have even reported the experience of VTE to be more upsetting than that of the cancer,” they wrote. “More than 50% of thrombotic events occur within 3 months of the cancer diagnosis, a time when most cancer treatments will be underway. Patients, who are still coming to terms with a recent cancer diagnosis, often view the occurrence of VTE as a further threat to life, confirmation of the severity of their condition, and a poor prognostic sign.”

Therefore, the new guidelines aim to reduce VTE frequency, risk of bleeding complications, morbidity, and costs, thereby improving quality of life and the patient experience, the authors said, noting that three other recent guidelines on VTEs in patients with cancer have been published: the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, the 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer guidelines, and the 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

The ASH guidelines are similar in many ways to the other guidelines, but differ in some ways, as well. An example is the timing of initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related major abdominal surgery. The ASCO and ITAC guidelines advise starting thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, whereas the ASH guidelines recommend initiating thromboprophylaxis postoperatively, citing “the limited advantages to initiating thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, in addition to the potential bleeding and logistical considerations associated with neuraxial anesthesia.”

These differences highlight a lack of data in that setting and the need for additional studies, the authors said.
 

ASH vs. ASCO

James Douketis, MD, a practicing clinician and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., highlighted another difference between the ASH and ASCO guidelines.

“For the treatment of [cancer-associated thrombosis], ASCO gives a strong recommendation to use LMWH or DOACs (with some caveats), which is easy to follow. ASH, on the other hand, suggests LMWH or a DOAC for the first 7-10 days, DOACs for the first 3-6 months, and back to LMWH or DOACs after 6 months,” he said in an interview.

The recommendation is “very evidence based but ambiguous and not helpful for the practicing clinician,” added Dr. Douketis, who helped develop the ITAC guidelines, but was not part of the ASH or ASCO guideline panels.

ASCO also provides a clear recommendation for giving VTE prophylaxis for 4 weeks after cancer surgery in patients with high VTE risk, whereas ASH gives “a somewhat vague recommendation” for thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge.

The guidelines are “pretty well aligned” with respect to recommendations on VTE prophylaxis in medical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and although the “extremely academic” ASH guidelines were developed by “a superb team using the same evidence and excellent methodology,” they are interpreted in slightly different ways and fall short when it comes to being clinician friendly, Dr. Douketis said.

“At the end of day, for practicing clinicians, the ASH guidelines don’t provide a message that’s easy to digest,” he added.

ASH has, however, provided a resource page that includes tools and information for implementing the guidelines in clinical practice, and will maintain the guidelines “through surveillance for new evidence, ongoing review by experts, and regular revisions,” the authors said.

[email protected]

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

A new approach to breast screening proposes that all women should have a baseline evaluation of breast density by mammography at the age of 40.

The result would then be used to stratify further screening, with annual screening starting at age 40 for average-risk women who have dense breasts, and screening every 2 years starting at age 50 for women without dense breasts.

Such an approach would be cost effective and offers a more targeted risk-based strategy for the early detection of breast cancer when compared with current practices, say the authors, led by Tina Shih, PhD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Their modeling study was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, experts writing in an accompanying editorial are not persuaded. Karla Kerlikowske, MD, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, both from the University of California, San Francisco, point out that not all women with dense breasts are at increased risk for breast cancer. They caution against relying on breast density alone when determining screening strategies, and say age and other risk factors also need to be considered.
 

New approach proposed

Current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force suggest that women in their 40s can choose to undergo screening mammography based on their own personal preference, Dr. Shih explained in an interview.

However, these recommendations do not take into consideration the additional risk that breast density confers on breast cancer risk – and the only way women can know their breast density is to have a mammogram. “If you follow [current] guidelines, you would not know about your breast density until the age of 45 or 50,” she commented.

“But what if you knew about breast density earlier on and then acted on it –would that make a difference?” This was the question her team set out to explore.

For their study, the authors defined women with dense breasts as those with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category C (heterogeneously dense breasts) and category D (extremely dense breasts).

The team used a computer model to compare seven different breast screening strategies:

• No screening.
• Triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (T50).
• Biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and triennial. screening from age 50 to 75 for women without dense breasts at the age of 50 (SA50T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and biennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breast at age 50 (SA50B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 49, and triennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 40, and biennial mammography for women from age 50 to 75 without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40B50).

Compared with a no-screening strategy, the average number of mammography sessions through a woman’s lifetime would increase from seven mammograms per lifetime for the least frequent screening (T50) to 22 mammograms per lifetime for the most intensive screening schedule, the team reports.  

Compared with no screening, screening would reduce breast cancer deaths by 8.6 per 1,000 women (T50)–13.2 per 1,000 women (SA40B50).

A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the proposed new approach (SA40B50) yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), compared with the currently recommended biennial screening strategy. This is well within the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY that is generally accepted by society, the authors point out.

On the other hand, false-positive results and overdiagnosis would increase, the authors note.

The average number of false positives would increase from 141.2 per 1,000 women who underwent the least frequent triennial mammography screening schedule (T50) to 567.3 per 1,000 women with the new approach (SA40B50).  

Rates of overdiagnosis would also increase from a low of 12.5% to a high of 18.6%, they add.

“With this study, we are not saying that everybody should start screening at the age of 40. We’re just saying, do a baseline mammography at 40, know your breast density status, and then we can try to modify the screening schedule based on individual risk,” Dr. Shih emphasized.

“Compared with other screening strategies examined in our study, this strategy is associated with the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality and is cost effective, [although it] involves the most screening mammograms in a woman’s lifetime and higher rates of false-positive results and overdiagnosis,” the authors conclude.  
 

Fundamental problem with this approach 

The fundamental problem with this approach of stratifying risk on measurement of breast density – and on the basis of a single reading – is that not every woman with dense breasts is at increased risk for breast cancer, the editorialists comment.

Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo point out that, in fact, only about one-quarter of women with dense breasts are at high risk for a missed invasive cancer within 1 year of a negative mammogram, and these women can be identified by using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model.

“This observation means that most women with dense breasts can undergo biennial screening and need not consider annual screening or supplemental imaging,” the editorialists write.

“Thus, we caution against using breast density alone to determine if a woman is at elevated risk for breast cancer,” they emphasize.

An alternative option is to focus on overall risk to select screening strategies, they suggest. For example, most guidelines recommend screening from age 50 to 74, so identifying women in their 40s who have the same risk of a woman aged 50-59 is one way to determine who may benefit from earlier initiation of screening, the editorialists observe.

“Thus, women who have a first-degree relative with breast cancer or a history of breast biopsy could be offered screening in their 40s, and, if mammography shows dense breasts, they could continue biennial screening through their 40s,” the editorialists observe. “Such women with nondense breasts could resume biennial screening at age 50 years.”  

Dr. Shih told this news organization that she did not disagree with the editorialists’ suggestion that physicians could focus on overall breast cancer risk to select an appropriate screening strategy for individual patients.

“What we are suggesting is, ‘Let’s just do a baseline assessment at the age of 40 so women know their breast density instead of waiting until they are older,’ “ she said.

“But what the editorialists are suggesting is a strategy that could be even more cost effective,” she acknowledged. Dr. Shih also said that Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo’s estimate that only one-quarter of women with dense breasts are actually at high risk for breast cancer likely reflects their limitation of breast density to only those women with BI-RADs category “D” – extremely dense breasts.

Yet as Dr. Shih notes, women with category C and category D breast densities are both at higher risk for breast cancer, so ignoring women with lesser degrees of breast density still doesn’t address the fact that they have a higher-than-average risk for breast cancer.

“It’s getting harder to make universal screening strategies work as we are learning more and more about breast cancer, so people are starting to talk about screening strategies based on a patient’s risk classification,” Dr. Shih noted.

“It’ll be harder to implement these kinds of strategies, but it seems like the right way to go,” she added.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shih reports grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerlikowske is an unpaid consultant for GRAIL for the STRIVE study. Dr. Bibbins-Domingo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new approach to breast screening proposes that all women should have a baseline evaluation of breast density by mammography at the age of 40.

The result would then be used to stratify further screening, with annual screening starting at age 40 for average-risk women who have dense breasts, and screening every 2 years starting at age 50 for women without dense breasts.

Such an approach would be cost effective and offers a more targeted risk-based strategy for the early detection of breast cancer when compared with current practices, say the authors, led by Tina Shih, PhD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Their modeling study was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, experts writing in an accompanying editorial are not persuaded. Karla Kerlikowske, MD, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, both from the University of California, San Francisco, point out that not all women with dense breasts are at increased risk for breast cancer. They caution against relying on breast density alone when determining screening strategies, and say age and other risk factors also need to be considered.
 

New approach proposed

Current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force suggest that women in their 40s can choose to undergo screening mammography based on their own personal preference, Dr. Shih explained in an interview.

However, these recommendations do not take into consideration the additional risk that breast density confers on breast cancer risk – and the only way women can know their breast density is to have a mammogram. “If you follow [current] guidelines, you would not know about your breast density until the age of 45 or 50,” she commented.

“But what if you knew about breast density earlier on and then acted on it –would that make a difference?” This was the question her team set out to explore.

For their study, the authors defined women with dense breasts as those with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category C (heterogeneously dense breasts) and category D (extremely dense breasts).

The team used a computer model to compare seven different breast screening strategies:

• No screening.
• Triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (T50).
• Biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and triennial. screening from age 50 to 75 for women without dense breasts at the age of 50 (SA50T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and biennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breast at age 50 (SA50B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 49, and triennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 40, and biennial mammography for women from age 50 to 75 without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40B50).

Compared with a no-screening strategy, the average number of mammography sessions through a woman’s lifetime would increase from seven mammograms per lifetime for the least frequent screening (T50) to 22 mammograms per lifetime for the most intensive screening schedule, the team reports.  

Compared with no screening, screening would reduce breast cancer deaths by 8.6 per 1,000 women (T50)–13.2 per 1,000 women (SA40B50).

A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the proposed new approach (SA40B50) yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), compared with the currently recommended biennial screening strategy. This is well within the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY that is generally accepted by society, the authors point out.

On the other hand, false-positive results and overdiagnosis would increase, the authors note.

The average number of false positives would increase from 141.2 per 1,000 women who underwent the least frequent triennial mammography screening schedule (T50) to 567.3 per 1,000 women with the new approach (SA40B50).  

Rates of overdiagnosis would also increase from a low of 12.5% to a high of 18.6%, they add.

“With this study, we are not saying that everybody should start screening at the age of 40. We’re just saying, do a baseline mammography at 40, know your breast density status, and then we can try to modify the screening schedule based on individual risk,” Dr. Shih emphasized.

“Compared with other screening strategies examined in our study, this strategy is associated with the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality and is cost effective, [although it] involves the most screening mammograms in a woman’s lifetime and higher rates of false-positive results and overdiagnosis,” the authors conclude.  
 

Fundamental problem with this approach 

The fundamental problem with this approach of stratifying risk on measurement of breast density – and on the basis of a single reading – is that not every woman with dense breasts is at increased risk for breast cancer, the editorialists comment.

Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo point out that, in fact, only about one-quarter of women with dense breasts are at high risk for a missed invasive cancer within 1 year of a negative mammogram, and these women can be identified by using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model.

“This observation means that most women with dense breasts can undergo biennial screening and need not consider annual screening or supplemental imaging,” the editorialists write.

“Thus, we caution against using breast density alone to determine if a woman is at elevated risk for breast cancer,” they emphasize.

An alternative option is to focus on overall risk to select screening strategies, they suggest. For example, most guidelines recommend screening from age 50 to 74, so identifying women in their 40s who have the same risk of a woman aged 50-59 is one way to determine who may benefit from earlier initiation of screening, the editorialists observe.

“Thus, women who have a first-degree relative with breast cancer or a history of breast biopsy could be offered screening in their 40s, and, if mammography shows dense breasts, they could continue biennial screening through their 40s,” the editorialists observe. “Such women with nondense breasts could resume biennial screening at age 50 years.”  

Dr. Shih told this news organization that she did not disagree with the editorialists’ suggestion that physicians could focus on overall breast cancer risk to select an appropriate screening strategy for individual patients.

“What we are suggesting is, ‘Let’s just do a baseline assessment at the age of 40 so women know their breast density instead of waiting until they are older,’ “ she said.

“But what the editorialists are suggesting is a strategy that could be even more cost effective,” she acknowledged. Dr. Shih also said that Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo’s estimate that only one-quarter of women with dense breasts are actually at high risk for breast cancer likely reflects their limitation of breast density to only those women with BI-RADs category “D” – extremely dense breasts.

Yet as Dr. Shih notes, women with category C and category D breast densities are both at higher risk for breast cancer, so ignoring women with lesser degrees of breast density still doesn’t address the fact that they have a higher-than-average risk for breast cancer.

“It’s getting harder to make universal screening strategies work as we are learning more and more about breast cancer, so people are starting to talk about screening strategies based on a patient’s risk classification,” Dr. Shih noted.

“It’ll be harder to implement these kinds of strategies, but it seems like the right way to go,” she added.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shih reports grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerlikowske is an unpaid consultant for GRAIL for the STRIVE study. Dr. Bibbins-Domingo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new approach to breast screening proposes that all women should have a baseline evaluation of breast density by mammography at the age of 40.

The result would then be used to stratify further screening, with annual screening starting at age 40 for average-risk women who have dense breasts, and screening every 2 years starting at age 50 for women without dense breasts.

Such an approach would be cost effective and offers a more targeted risk-based strategy for the early detection of breast cancer when compared with current practices, say the authors, led by Tina Shih, PhD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Their modeling study was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, experts writing in an accompanying editorial are not persuaded. Karla Kerlikowske, MD, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, both from the University of California, San Francisco, point out that not all women with dense breasts are at increased risk for breast cancer. They caution against relying on breast density alone when determining screening strategies, and say age and other risk factors also need to be considered.
 

New approach proposed

Current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force suggest that women in their 40s can choose to undergo screening mammography based on their own personal preference, Dr. Shih explained in an interview.

However, these recommendations do not take into consideration the additional risk that breast density confers on breast cancer risk – and the only way women can know their breast density is to have a mammogram. “If you follow [current] guidelines, you would not know about your breast density until the age of 45 or 50,” she commented.

“But what if you knew about breast density earlier on and then acted on it –would that make a difference?” This was the question her team set out to explore.

For their study, the authors defined women with dense breasts as those with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category C (heterogeneously dense breasts) and category D (extremely dense breasts).

The team used a computer model to compare seven different breast screening strategies:

• No screening.
• Triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (T50).
• Biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and triennial. screening from age 50 to 75 for women without dense breasts at the age of 50 (SA50T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and biennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breast at age 50 (SA50B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 49, and triennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 40, and biennial mammography for women from age 50 to 75 without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40B50).

Compared with a no-screening strategy, the average number of mammography sessions through a woman’s lifetime would increase from seven mammograms per lifetime for the least frequent screening (T50) to 22 mammograms per lifetime for the most intensive screening schedule, the team reports.  

Compared with no screening, screening would reduce breast cancer deaths by 8.6 per 1,000 women (T50)–13.2 per 1,000 women (SA40B50).

A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the proposed new approach (SA40B50) yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), compared with the currently recommended biennial screening strategy. This is well within the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY that is generally accepted by society, the authors point out.

On the other hand, false-positive results and overdiagnosis would increase, the authors note.

The average number of false positives would increase from 141.2 per 1,000 women who underwent the least frequent triennial mammography screening schedule (T50) to 567.3 per 1,000 women with the new approach (SA40B50).  

Rates of overdiagnosis would also increase from a low of 12.5% to a high of 18.6%, they add.

“With this study, we are not saying that everybody should start screening at the age of 40. We’re just saying, do a baseline mammography at 40, know your breast density status, and then we can try to modify the screening schedule based on individual risk,” Dr. Shih emphasized.

“Compared with other screening strategies examined in our study, this strategy is associated with the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality and is cost effective, [although it] involves the most screening mammograms in a woman’s lifetime and higher rates of false-positive results and overdiagnosis,” the authors conclude.  
 

Fundamental problem with this approach 

The fundamental problem with this approach of stratifying risk on measurement of breast density – and on the basis of a single reading – is that not every woman with dense breasts is at increased risk for breast cancer, the editorialists comment.

Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo point out that, in fact, only about one-quarter of women with dense breasts are at high risk for a missed invasive cancer within 1 year of a negative mammogram, and these women can be identified by using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model.

“This observation means that most women with dense breasts can undergo biennial screening and need not consider annual screening or supplemental imaging,” the editorialists write.

“Thus, we caution against using breast density alone to determine if a woman is at elevated risk for breast cancer,” they emphasize.

An alternative option is to focus on overall risk to select screening strategies, they suggest. For example, most guidelines recommend screening from age 50 to 74, so identifying women in their 40s who have the same risk of a woman aged 50-59 is one way to determine who may benefit from earlier initiation of screening, the editorialists observe.

“Thus, women who have a first-degree relative with breast cancer or a history of breast biopsy could be offered screening in their 40s, and, if mammography shows dense breasts, they could continue biennial screening through their 40s,” the editorialists observe. “Such women with nondense breasts could resume biennial screening at age 50 years.”  

Dr. Shih told this news organization that she did not disagree with the editorialists’ suggestion that physicians could focus on overall breast cancer risk to select an appropriate screening strategy for individual patients.

“What we are suggesting is, ‘Let’s just do a baseline assessment at the age of 40 so women know their breast density instead of waiting until they are older,’ “ she said.

“But what the editorialists are suggesting is a strategy that could be even more cost effective,” she acknowledged. Dr. Shih also said that Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo’s estimate that only one-quarter of women with dense breasts are actually at high risk for breast cancer likely reflects their limitation of breast density to only those women with BI-RADs category “D” – extremely dense breasts.

Yet as Dr. Shih notes, women with category C and category D breast densities are both at higher risk for breast cancer, so ignoring women with lesser degrees of breast density still doesn’t address the fact that they have a higher-than-average risk for breast cancer.

“It’s getting harder to make universal screening strategies work as we are learning more and more about breast cancer, so people are starting to talk about screening strategies based on a patient’s risk classification,” Dr. Shih noted.

“It’ll be harder to implement these kinds of strategies, but it seems like the right way to go,” she added.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shih reports grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerlikowske is an unpaid consultant for GRAIL for the STRIVE study. Dr. Bibbins-Domingo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.