Gargi Mukherjee

TOPLINE:

An analysis of 3142 US counties revealed that county-level screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer increased overall between 1997 and 2019; however, despite the reduced geographic variation, persistently high-screening clusters remained in the Northeast, whereas persistently low-screening clusters remained in the Southwest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer screening reduces mortality. Despite guideline recommendation, the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the US falls short of national goals and varies across sociodemographic groups. To date, only a few studies have examined geographic and temporal patterns of screening.
• To address this gap, researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using an ecological panel design to analyze county-level screening prevalence across 3142 US mainland counties from 1997 to 2019, deriving prevalence estimates from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data over 3- to 5-year periods.
• Spatial autocorrelation analyses, including Global Moran I and the bivariate local indicator of spatial autocorrelation, were performed to assess geographic clusters of cancer screening within each period. Four types of local geographic clusters of county-level cancer screening were identified: counties with persistently high screening rates, counties with persistently low screening rates, counties in which screening rates decreased from high to low, and counties in which screening rates increased from low to high.
• Screening prevalence was compared across multiple time windows for different modalities (mammography, a Papanicolaou test, colonoscopy, colorectal cancer test, endoscopy, and a fecal occult blood test [FOBT]). Overall, 3101 counties were analyzed for mammography and the Papanicolaou test, 3107 counties for colonoscopy, 3100 counties for colorectal cancer test, 3089 counties for endoscopy, and 3090 counties for the FOBT.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall screening prevalence increased from 1997 to 2019, and global spatial autocorrelation declined over time. For instance, the distribution of mammography screening became 83% more uniform in more recent years (Moran I, 0.57 in 1997-1999 vs 0.10 in 2017-2019). Similarly, Papanicolaou test screening became more uniform in more recent years (Moran I, 0.44 vs. 0.07). These changes indicate reduced geographic heterogeneity.
• Colonoscopy and endoscopy use increased, surpassing a 50% prevalence in many counties for 2010; however, FOBT use declined. Spatial clustering also attenuated, with a 23.4% declined in Moran I for colonoscopy from 2011-2016 to 2017-2019, a 12.3% decline in the colorectal cancer test from 2004-2007 to 2008-2010, and a 14.0% decline for endoscopy from 2004-2007 to 2008-2010.
• Persistently high-/high-screening clusters were concentrated in the Northeast for mammography and colorectal cancer screening and in the East for Papanicolaou test screening, whereas persistently low-/low-screening clusters were concentrated in the Southwest for the same modalities.
• Clusters of low- and high-screening counties were more disadvantaged -- with lower socioeconomic status and a higher proportion of non-White residents -- than other cluster types, suggesting some improvement in screening uptake in more disadvantaged areas. Counties with persistently low screening exhibited greater socioeconomic disadvantages -- lower media household income, higher poverty, lower home values, and lower educational attainment -- than those with persistently high screening.

IN PRACTICE:

"This cross-sectional study found that despite secular increases that reduced geographic variation in screening, local clusters of high and low screening persisted in the Northeast and Southwest US, respectively. Future studies could incorporate health care access characteristics to explain why areas of low screening did not catch up to optimize cancer screening practice," the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pranoti Pradhan, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The county-level estimates were modeled using BRFSS, NHIS, and US Census data, which might be susceptible to sampling biases despite corrections for nonresponse and noncoverage. Researchers lacked data on specific health systems characteristics that may have directly driven changes in prevalence and were restricted to using screening time intervals available from the Small Area Estimates for Cancer-Relates Measures from the National Cancer Institute, rather than those according to US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. Additionally, the spatial cluster method was sensitive to county size and arrangement, which may have influenced local cluster detection.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the T32 Cancer Prevention and Control Funding Fellowship and T32 Cancer Epidemiology Fellowship at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

An analysis of 3142 US counties revealed that county-level screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer increased overall between 1997 and 2019; however, despite the reduced geographic variation, persistently high-screening clusters remained in the Northeast, whereas persistently low-screening clusters remained in the Southwest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer screening reduces mortality. Despite guideline recommendation, the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the US falls short of national goals and varies across sociodemographic groups. To date, only a few studies have examined geographic and temporal patterns of screening.
• To address this gap, researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using an ecological panel design to analyze county-level screening prevalence across 3142 US mainland counties from 1997 to 2019, deriving prevalence estimates from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data over 3- to 5-year periods.
• Spatial autocorrelation analyses, including Global Moran I and the bivariate local indicator of spatial autocorrelation, were performed to assess geographic clusters of cancer screening within each period. Four types of local geographic clusters of county-level cancer screening were identified: counties with persistently high screening rates, counties with persistently low screening rates, counties in which screening rates decreased from high to low, and counties in which screening rates increased from low to high.
• Screening prevalence was compared across multiple time windows for different modalities (mammography, a Papanicolaou test, colonoscopy, colorectal cancer test, endoscopy, and a fecal occult blood test [FOBT]). Overall, 3101 counties were analyzed for mammography and the Papanicolaou test, 3107 counties for colonoscopy, 3100 counties for colorectal cancer test, 3089 counties for endoscopy, and 3090 counties for the FOBT.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall screening prevalence increased from 1997 to 2019, and global spatial autocorrelation declined over time. For instance, the distribution of mammography screening became 83% more uniform in more recent years (Moran I, 0.57 in 1997-1999 vs 0.10 in 2017-2019). Similarly, Papanicolaou test screening became more uniform in more recent years (Moran I, 0.44 vs. 0.07). These changes indicate reduced geographic heterogeneity.
• Colonoscopy and endoscopy use increased, surpassing a 50% prevalence in many counties for 2010; however, FOBT use declined. Spatial clustering also attenuated, with a 23.4% declined in Moran I for colonoscopy from 2011-2016 to 2017-2019, a 12.3% decline in the colorectal cancer test from 2004-2007 to 2008-2010, and a 14.0% decline for endoscopy from 2004-2007 to 2008-2010.
• Persistently high-/high-screening clusters were concentrated in the Northeast for mammography and colorectal cancer screening and in the East for Papanicolaou test screening, whereas persistently low-/low-screening clusters were concentrated in the Southwest for the same modalities.
• Clusters of low- and high-screening counties were more disadvantaged -- with lower socioeconomic status and a higher proportion of non-White residents -- than other cluster types, suggesting some improvement in screening uptake in more disadvantaged areas. Counties with persistently low screening exhibited greater socioeconomic disadvantages -- lower media household income, higher poverty, lower home values, and lower educational attainment -- than those with persistently high screening.

IN PRACTICE:

"This cross-sectional study found that despite secular increases that reduced geographic variation in screening, local clusters of high and low screening persisted in the Northeast and Southwest US, respectively. Future studies could incorporate health care access characteristics to explain why areas of low screening did not catch up to optimize cancer screening practice," the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pranoti Pradhan, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The county-level estimates were modeled using BRFSS, NHIS, and US Census data, which might be susceptible to sampling biases despite corrections for nonresponse and noncoverage. Researchers lacked data on specific health systems characteristics that may have directly driven changes in prevalence and were restricted to using screening time intervals available from the Small Area Estimates for Cancer-Relates Measures from the National Cancer Institute, rather than those according to US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. Additionally, the spatial cluster method was sensitive to county size and arrangement, which may have influenced local cluster detection.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the T32 Cancer Prevention and Control Funding Fellowship and T32 Cancer Epidemiology Fellowship at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

An analysis of 3142 US counties revealed that county-level screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer increased overall between 1997 and 2019; however, despite the reduced geographic variation, persistently high-screening clusters remained in the Northeast, whereas persistently low-screening clusters remained in the Southwest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer screening reduces mortality. Despite guideline recommendation, the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the US falls short of national goals and varies across sociodemographic groups. To date, only a few studies have examined geographic and temporal patterns of screening.
• To address this gap, researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using an ecological panel design to analyze county-level screening prevalence across 3142 US mainland counties from 1997 to 2019, deriving prevalence estimates from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data over 3- to 5-year periods.
• Spatial autocorrelation analyses, including Global Moran I and the bivariate local indicator of spatial autocorrelation, were performed to assess geographic clusters of cancer screening within each period. Four types of local geographic clusters of county-level cancer screening were identified: counties with persistently high screening rates, counties with persistently low screening rates, counties in which screening rates decreased from high to low, and counties in which screening rates increased from low to high.
• Screening prevalence was compared across multiple time windows for different modalities (mammography, a Papanicolaou test, colonoscopy, colorectal cancer test, endoscopy, and a fecal occult blood test [FOBT]). Overall, 3101 counties were analyzed for mammography and the Papanicolaou test, 3107 counties for colonoscopy, 3100 counties for colorectal cancer test, 3089 counties for endoscopy, and 3090 counties for the FOBT.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall screening prevalence increased from 1997 to 2019, and global spatial autocorrelation declined over time. For instance, the distribution of mammography screening became 83% more uniform in more recent years (Moran I, 0.57 in 1997-1999 vs 0.10 in 2017-2019). Similarly, Papanicolaou test screening became more uniform in more recent years (Moran I, 0.44 vs. 0.07). These changes indicate reduced geographic heterogeneity.
• Colonoscopy and endoscopy use increased, surpassing a 50% prevalence in many counties for 2010; however, FOBT use declined. Spatial clustering also attenuated, with a 23.4% declined in Moran I for colonoscopy from 2011-2016 to 2017-2019, a 12.3% decline in the colorectal cancer test from 2004-2007 to 2008-2010, and a 14.0% decline for endoscopy from 2004-2007 to 2008-2010.
• Persistently high-/high-screening clusters were concentrated in the Northeast for mammography and colorectal cancer screening and in the East for Papanicolaou test screening, whereas persistently low-/low-screening clusters were concentrated in the Southwest for the same modalities.
• Clusters of low- and high-screening counties were more disadvantaged -- with lower socioeconomic status and a higher proportion of non-White residents -- than other cluster types, suggesting some improvement in screening uptake in more disadvantaged areas. Counties with persistently low screening exhibited greater socioeconomic disadvantages -- lower media household income, higher poverty, lower home values, and lower educational attainment -- than those with persistently high screening.

IN PRACTICE:

"This cross-sectional study found that despite secular increases that reduced geographic variation in screening, local clusters of high and low screening persisted in the Northeast and Southwest US, respectively. Future studies could incorporate health care access characteristics to explain why areas of low screening did not catch up to optimize cancer screening practice," the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pranoti Pradhan, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The county-level estimates were modeled using BRFSS, NHIS, and US Census data, which might be susceptible to sampling biases despite corrections for nonresponse and noncoverage. Researchers lacked data on specific health systems characteristics that may have directly driven changes in prevalence and were restricted to using screening time intervals available from the Small Area Estimates for Cancer-Relates Measures from the National Cancer Institute, rather than those according to US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. Additionally, the spatial cluster method was sensitive to county size and arrangement, which may have influenced local cluster detection.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the T32 Cancer Prevention and Control Funding Fellowship and T32 Cancer Epidemiology Fellowship at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A comprehensive review of 92 studies found that 15% to 20% of lung cancers occurred among nonsmokers and were associated with environmental and germline risk factors. These cancers frequently harbored actionable genomic drivers, and targeted EGFR and ALK therapies produced significant diseasefree survival (DFS) and overall survival benefits.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, causing about 1.8 million deaths in 2022, with smoking remaining the predominant risk factor. However, the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers (those who have smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime) is rising, varies by sex and geography, and is linked to environmental exposures and family history. The misperception that lung cancer is almost invariably caused by smoking may delay assessment and diagnosis.
• Researchers conducted a review of 92 studies on lung cancer in nonsmokers: 6 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 16 randomized clinical trials, eight prospective cohort studies, seven retrospective cohort studies, three cross-sectional studies, four observational or case-control studies, 13 genomic studies, and 35 other studies.
• Overall, lung cancer among nonsmokers accounted for 15% to 20% of all lung cancer cases. Most lung cancers in nonsmokers were adenocarcinomas (60% to 80%), with a median age at diagnosis of 67 years in this group compared with 70 years in people with a history of smoking.
• Data analysis from three US hospital networks showed that the proportion of lung cancer among nonsmokers increased from 8.0% to 14.9% between 1990 and 2013. A pooled analysis of seven Finnish cohorts reported an absolute increase in lung cancer among nonsmokers from 6.9 per 100,000 person-years in 1972 to 12.9 per 100,000 person-years in 2015.
• The age-adjusted incidence rate of lung cancer in the US between 2000 and 2013 was 17.5 per 100,000 individuals among Asian female nonsmokers compared with 10.1 per 100,000 among non-Hispanic White female nonsmokers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Environmental and occupational risk factors were secondhand smoke, residential radon, outdoor and household air pollution (PM_2.5), asbestos and silica exposure, and prior thoracic radiotherapy. Having a first-degree relative with lung cancer increased the risk of developing lung cancer, and genome-wide association studies identified susceptibility loci associated with lung cancer risk in nonsmokers.
• Family history and inherited susceptibility increased lung cancer risk in never smokers (odds ratio [OR] for lung cancer in those with a first–degree relative, 1.51), and clonal hematopoiesis was also associated with higher risk (OR, 1.43). Importantly, tumors in nonsmokers were frequently driven by actionable somatic alterations (EGFR mutations, 40% to 60% in nonsmokers compared with 10% in smokers) and enrichment of ALK/ROS1/RET/ERBB2/NTRK/NRG1 fusions; 78% to 92% of adenocarcinomas in nonsmokers harbored actionable drivers (compared with 49.5% in ever smokers), and nonsmokers had a substantially lower tumor mutational burden (10–fold lower).
• Similar to individuals with a history of smoking, nonsmokers with lung cancer presented with cough, pain, dyspnea, or weight loss or had disease detected incidentally. Surgical resection remained the preferred treatment for anatomically resectable lung cancer (stages I-III) in medically eligible patients, with follow-up CT screening recommended every 6 months for 2 to 3 years and then annually.
• Targeted adjuvant therapy substantially improved outcomes for resected EGFR–mutant or ALK–rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Four-year DFS was increased to 70% with osimertinib compared with 29% with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23) and 5–year overall survival was increased to 85% compared with 73% (HR, 0.49). Two–year DFS was 93.8% with alectinib compared with 63% with placebo (HR, 0.24). In unresectable EGFR-mutated stage III NSCLC, median progression-free survival was 39.1 months with adjuvant osimertinib compared with 5.6 months with placebo. For resected ALKpositive disease, 2–year DFS was 93.8% with adjuvant alectinib compared with 63.0% with chemotherapy (HR, 0.24).
• However, singleagent single agent programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors demonstrated limited efficacy in EGFR or ALK–driven tumors, and benefit was attenuated in never smokers. Regarding screening and early detection, the US Preventive Services Task Force did not recommend lowdose CT screening for nonsmokers, whereas Taiwan implemented a biennial screening program for selected nonsmoking high–risk groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Among patients with lung cancer, nonsmoking individuals are more likely to have genomic alterations, such as EGFR mutations or ALK gene rearrangements, and these patients have improved survival when treated with TKIs compared with chemotherapy,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Cian Murphy, PhD, Cancer Evolution and Genome Instability Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, London, England, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Becausesmoking history was often not included in many databases, cancer registries, and trials, the incidence and prevalence of lung cancer in nonsmokers could not be accurately determined. Additionally, accurate quantification of environmental exposures, such as air pollution, presented significant challenges. The quality of the evidence was not formally evaluated, and some relevant articles may have been missed in the literature review.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from multiple organizations, including the Rosetrees Trust, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from and having other ties with various sources. Full disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A comprehensive review of 92 studies found that 15% to 20% of lung cancers occurred among nonsmokers and were associated with environmental and germline risk factors. These cancers frequently harbored actionable genomic drivers, and targeted EGFR and ALK therapies produced significant diseasefree survival (DFS) and overall survival benefits.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, causing about 1.8 million deaths in 2022, with smoking remaining the predominant risk factor. However, the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers (those who have smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime) is rising, varies by sex and geography, and is linked to environmental exposures and family history. The misperception that lung cancer is almost invariably caused by smoking may delay assessment and diagnosis.
• Researchers conducted a review of 92 studies on lung cancer in nonsmokers: 6 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 16 randomized clinical trials, eight prospective cohort studies, seven retrospective cohort studies, three cross-sectional studies, four observational or case-control studies, 13 genomic studies, and 35 other studies.
• Overall, lung cancer among nonsmokers accounted for 15% to 20% of all lung cancer cases. Most lung cancers in nonsmokers were adenocarcinomas (60% to 80%), with a median age at diagnosis of 67 years in this group compared with 70 years in people with a history of smoking.
• Data analysis from three US hospital networks showed that the proportion of lung cancer among nonsmokers increased from 8.0% to 14.9% between 1990 and 2013. A pooled analysis of seven Finnish cohorts reported an absolute increase in lung cancer among nonsmokers from 6.9 per 100,000 person-years in 1972 to 12.9 per 100,000 person-years in 2015.
• The age-adjusted incidence rate of lung cancer in the US between 2000 and 2013 was 17.5 per 100,000 individuals among Asian female nonsmokers compared with 10.1 per 100,000 among non-Hispanic White female nonsmokers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Environmental and occupational risk factors were secondhand smoke, residential radon, outdoor and household air pollution (PM_2.5), asbestos and silica exposure, and prior thoracic radiotherapy. Having a first-degree relative with lung cancer increased the risk of developing lung cancer, and genome-wide association studies identified susceptibility loci associated with lung cancer risk in nonsmokers.
• Family history and inherited susceptibility increased lung cancer risk in never smokers (odds ratio [OR] for lung cancer in those with a first–degree relative, 1.51), and clonal hematopoiesis was also associated with higher risk (OR, 1.43). Importantly, tumors in nonsmokers were frequently driven by actionable somatic alterations (EGFR mutations, 40% to 60% in nonsmokers compared with 10% in smokers) and enrichment of ALK/ROS1/RET/ERBB2/NTRK/NRG1 fusions; 78% to 92% of adenocarcinomas in nonsmokers harbored actionable drivers (compared with 49.5% in ever smokers), and nonsmokers had a substantially lower tumor mutational burden (10–fold lower).
• Similar to individuals with a history of smoking, nonsmokers with lung cancer presented with cough, pain, dyspnea, or weight loss or had disease detected incidentally. Surgical resection remained the preferred treatment for anatomically resectable lung cancer (stages I-III) in medically eligible patients, with follow-up CT screening recommended every 6 months for 2 to 3 years and then annually.
• Targeted adjuvant therapy substantially improved outcomes for resected EGFR–mutant or ALK–rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Four-year DFS was increased to 70% with osimertinib compared with 29% with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23) and 5–year overall survival was increased to 85% compared with 73% (HR, 0.49). Two–year DFS was 93.8% with alectinib compared with 63% with placebo (HR, 0.24). In unresectable EGFR-mutated stage III NSCLC, median progression-free survival was 39.1 months with adjuvant osimertinib compared with 5.6 months with placebo. For resected ALKpositive disease, 2–year DFS was 93.8% with adjuvant alectinib compared with 63.0% with chemotherapy (HR, 0.24).
• However, singleagent single agent programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors demonstrated limited efficacy in EGFR or ALK–driven tumors, and benefit was attenuated in never smokers. Regarding screening and early detection, the US Preventive Services Task Force did not recommend lowdose CT screening for nonsmokers, whereas Taiwan implemented a biennial screening program for selected nonsmoking high–risk groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Among patients with lung cancer, nonsmoking individuals are more likely to have genomic alterations, such as EGFR mutations or ALK gene rearrangements, and these patients have improved survival when treated with TKIs compared with chemotherapy,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Cian Murphy, PhD, Cancer Evolution and Genome Instability Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, London, England, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Becausesmoking history was often not included in many databases, cancer registries, and trials, the incidence and prevalence of lung cancer in nonsmokers could not be accurately determined. Additionally, accurate quantification of environmental exposures, such as air pollution, presented significant challenges. The quality of the evidence was not formally evaluated, and some relevant articles may have been missed in the literature review.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from multiple organizations, including the Rosetrees Trust, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from and having other ties with various sources. Full disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A comprehensive review of 92 studies found that 15% to 20% of lung cancers occurred among nonsmokers and were associated with environmental and germline risk factors. These cancers frequently harbored actionable genomic drivers, and targeted EGFR and ALK therapies produced significant diseasefree survival (DFS) and overall survival benefits.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, causing about 1.8 million deaths in 2022, with smoking remaining the predominant risk factor. However, the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers (those who have smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime) is rising, varies by sex and geography, and is linked to environmental exposures and family history. The misperception that lung cancer is almost invariably caused by smoking may delay assessment and diagnosis.
• Researchers conducted a review of 92 studies on lung cancer in nonsmokers: 6 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 16 randomized clinical trials, eight prospective cohort studies, seven retrospective cohort studies, three cross-sectional studies, four observational or case-control studies, 13 genomic studies, and 35 other studies.
• Overall, lung cancer among nonsmokers accounted for 15% to 20% of all lung cancer cases. Most lung cancers in nonsmokers were adenocarcinomas (60% to 80%), with a median age at diagnosis of 67 years in this group compared with 70 years in people with a history of smoking.
• Data analysis from three US hospital networks showed that the proportion of lung cancer among nonsmokers increased from 8.0% to 14.9% between 1990 and 2013. A pooled analysis of seven Finnish cohorts reported an absolute increase in lung cancer among nonsmokers from 6.9 per 100,000 person-years in 1972 to 12.9 per 100,000 person-years in 2015.
• The age-adjusted incidence rate of lung cancer in the US between 2000 and 2013 was 17.5 per 100,000 individuals among Asian female nonsmokers compared with 10.1 per 100,000 among non-Hispanic White female nonsmokers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Environmental and occupational risk factors were secondhand smoke, residential radon, outdoor and household air pollution (PM_2.5), asbestos and silica exposure, and prior thoracic radiotherapy. Having a first-degree relative with lung cancer increased the risk of developing lung cancer, and genome-wide association studies identified susceptibility loci associated with lung cancer risk in nonsmokers.
• Family history and inherited susceptibility increased lung cancer risk in never smokers (odds ratio [OR] for lung cancer in those with a first–degree relative, 1.51), and clonal hematopoiesis was also associated with higher risk (OR, 1.43). Importantly, tumors in nonsmokers were frequently driven by actionable somatic alterations (EGFR mutations, 40% to 60% in nonsmokers compared with 10% in smokers) and enrichment of ALK/ROS1/RET/ERBB2/NTRK/NRG1 fusions; 78% to 92% of adenocarcinomas in nonsmokers harbored actionable drivers (compared with 49.5% in ever smokers), and nonsmokers had a substantially lower tumor mutational burden (10–fold lower).
• Similar to individuals with a history of smoking, nonsmokers with lung cancer presented with cough, pain, dyspnea, or weight loss or had disease detected incidentally. Surgical resection remained the preferred treatment for anatomically resectable lung cancer (stages I-III) in medically eligible patients, with follow-up CT screening recommended every 6 months for 2 to 3 years and then annually.
• Targeted adjuvant therapy substantially improved outcomes for resected EGFR–mutant or ALK–rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Four-year DFS was increased to 70% with osimertinib compared with 29% with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23) and 5–year overall survival was increased to 85% compared with 73% (HR, 0.49). Two–year DFS was 93.8% with alectinib compared with 63% with placebo (HR, 0.24). In unresectable EGFR-mutated stage III NSCLC, median progression-free survival was 39.1 months with adjuvant osimertinib compared with 5.6 months with placebo. For resected ALKpositive disease, 2–year DFS was 93.8% with adjuvant alectinib compared with 63.0% with chemotherapy (HR, 0.24).
• However, singleagent single agent programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors demonstrated limited efficacy in EGFR or ALK–driven tumors, and benefit was attenuated in never smokers. Regarding screening and early detection, the US Preventive Services Task Force did not recommend lowdose CT screening for nonsmokers, whereas Taiwan implemented a biennial screening program for selected nonsmoking high–risk groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Among patients with lung cancer, nonsmoking individuals are more likely to have genomic alterations, such as EGFR mutations or ALK gene rearrangements, and these patients have improved survival when treated with TKIs compared with chemotherapy,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Cian Murphy, PhD, Cancer Evolution and Genome Instability Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, London, England, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Becausesmoking history was often not included in many databases, cancer registries, and trials, the incidence and prevalence of lung cancer in nonsmokers could not be accurately determined. Additionally, accurate quantification of environmental exposures, such as air pollution, presented significant challenges. The quality of the evidence was not formally evaluated, and some relevant articles may have been missed in the literature review.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from multiple organizations, including the Rosetrees Trust, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from and having other ties with various sources. Full disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

High-risk medications defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and captured by the Geriatric Oncology Potentially Inappropriate Medication (GO-PIM) scale were prevalent in > one-third of veterans with solid and hematologic malignancies. Each additional GO-PIM was independently associated with higher risks for frailty at diagnosis, unplanned hospitalizations during follow-up, and death.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with cancer often use multiple chronic medications, raising risks for adverse events. Although several tools that identify PIMs have been developed that correlate with adverse cancer outcomes, their use is limited in busy oncology clinics. To improve implementation, researchers developed the GO-PIM scale using the NCCN’s list of high-risk medications.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the national Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry and electronic health records, which included 388,113 veterans newly diagnosed with solid or hematologic malignancies (median age, 69.3 years; 97.9% men; 76.1% non-Hispanic White and 17.3% Black individuals) between 2000 and 2022.
• They identified GO-PIMs using outpatient pharmacy records in the 90 days preceding cancer diagnosis. Each prescription for a specific GO-PIM was counted as one, including both individual drugs and drug classes listed in the GO-PIM scale.
• Study outcomes were frailty, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Baseline frailty at diagnosis was measured using the Veterans Affairs Frailty Index. The score ranged from 0 to 1, and higher scores indicated greater frailty. Patients were classified as nonfrail (score, ≤ 0.2), mildly frail (score, > 0.2 to 0.3), or moderate-to-severely frail (score, > 0.3).
• Lung (23.7%), prostate (21.5%), and gastrointestinal (20.5%) cancers were the most common, and the most frequent stages were IV (25.4%) and II (24.4%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 38.0% of veterans were prescribed ≥ 1 GO-PIMs at the time of cancer diagnosis, and the proportion increased to 56.1% among those with moderate-to-severe frailty.
• The most commonly prescribed classes of PIMs were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; 12.0%), opioids (10.4%), benzodiazepines (9.2%), and corticosteroids (9.2%). Among individual drugs, sertraline was the most common SSRI (4.3%), tramadol the most common opioid (5.3%), lorazepam the most common benzodiazepine (2.5%), and prednisone the most common corticosteroid (4.9%). Trends over time showed a steady increase in opioid prescriptions, peaking in 2014, followed by a subsequent decline, while prescriptions of benzodiazepines declined during the later years.
• After adjusting for age, cancer type and stage, and other covariates, each additional GO-PIM was associated with a 66% higher odds of mild or moderate-to-severe frailty at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66).
• After adjusting for frailty and covariates, each additional GO-PIM at diagnosis was associated with increased risks for unplanned hospitalizations and death (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.08 and 1.07, respectively). These associations remained stable in sensitivity analyses that restricted GO-PIMs to scheduled medications only, focused on patients who had initiated cancer treatment, and included only those aged ≥ 65 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Whether prescribed for supportive oncology care or for coexisting medical conditions, high-risk medications identified as PIMs should be reviewed and optimized in patients with cancer,” the authors of the study wrote.

“GO-PIMs offers a streamlined, oncology-specific approach to identifying high-risk prescribing, and complements existing efforts to improve supportive care, especially for older, frail patients,” remarked Mostafa R. Mohamed, MBBCH, PhD, MSc, and Erika E. Ramsdale, MD, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York in an invited commentary. “The next step lies in integrating tools such as GO-PIMs into everyday practice not only to flag high risk medications but also to support actionable changes in treatment planning and patient management, such as deprescribing,” they concluded.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer La, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

Prescription chronicity before or after follow-up was not measured and actual medication adherence could not be confirmed. Residual confounding by comorbidity could have existed, and the cross-sectional nature of linking GO-PIMs with frailty might have limited causal inference. Additionally, prescriptions were measured within Veterans Affairs pharmacy data, potentially underestimating GO-PIM prevalence, and the predominantly male population limited generalizability to gynecologic cancers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants and rewards from the Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, Cooperative Studies Program, National Institutes of Health, and American Heart Association. Some authors declared serving as consultants or receiving grants and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

High-risk medications defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and captured by the Geriatric Oncology Potentially Inappropriate Medication (GO-PIM) scale were prevalent in > one-third of veterans with solid and hematologic malignancies. Each additional GO-PIM was independently associated with higher risks for frailty at diagnosis, unplanned hospitalizations during follow-up, and death.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with cancer often use multiple chronic medications, raising risks for adverse events. Although several tools that identify PIMs have been developed that correlate with adverse cancer outcomes, their use is limited in busy oncology clinics. To improve implementation, researchers developed the GO-PIM scale using the NCCN’s list of high-risk medications.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the national Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry and electronic health records, which included 388,113 veterans newly diagnosed with solid or hematologic malignancies (median age, 69.3 years; 97.9% men; 76.1% non-Hispanic White and 17.3% Black individuals) between 2000 and 2022.
• They identified GO-PIMs using outpatient pharmacy records in the 90 days preceding cancer diagnosis. Each prescription for a specific GO-PIM was counted as one, including both individual drugs and drug classes listed in the GO-PIM scale.
• Study outcomes were frailty, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Baseline frailty at diagnosis was measured using the Veterans Affairs Frailty Index. The score ranged from 0 to 1, and higher scores indicated greater frailty. Patients were classified as nonfrail (score, ≤ 0.2), mildly frail (score, > 0.2 to 0.3), or moderate-to-severely frail (score, > 0.3).
• Lung (23.7%), prostate (21.5%), and gastrointestinal (20.5%) cancers were the most common, and the most frequent stages were IV (25.4%) and II (24.4%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 38.0% of veterans were prescribed ≥ 1 GO-PIMs at the time of cancer diagnosis, and the proportion increased to 56.1% among those with moderate-to-severe frailty.
• The most commonly prescribed classes of PIMs were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; 12.0%), opioids (10.4%), benzodiazepines (9.2%), and corticosteroids (9.2%). Among individual drugs, sertraline was the most common SSRI (4.3%), tramadol the most common opioid (5.3%), lorazepam the most common benzodiazepine (2.5%), and prednisone the most common corticosteroid (4.9%). Trends over time showed a steady increase in opioid prescriptions, peaking in 2014, followed by a subsequent decline, while prescriptions of benzodiazepines declined during the later years.
• After adjusting for age, cancer type and stage, and other covariates, each additional GO-PIM was associated with a 66% higher odds of mild or moderate-to-severe frailty at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66).
• After adjusting for frailty and covariates, each additional GO-PIM at diagnosis was associated with increased risks for unplanned hospitalizations and death (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.08 and 1.07, respectively). These associations remained stable in sensitivity analyses that restricted GO-PIMs to scheduled medications only, focused on patients who had initiated cancer treatment, and included only those aged ≥ 65 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Whether prescribed for supportive oncology care or for coexisting medical conditions, high-risk medications identified as PIMs should be reviewed and optimized in patients with cancer,” the authors of the study wrote.

“GO-PIMs offers a streamlined, oncology-specific approach to identifying high-risk prescribing, and complements existing efforts to improve supportive care, especially for older, frail patients,” remarked Mostafa R. Mohamed, MBBCH, PhD, MSc, and Erika E. Ramsdale, MD, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York in an invited commentary. “The next step lies in integrating tools such as GO-PIMs into everyday practice not only to flag high risk medications but also to support actionable changes in treatment planning and patient management, such as deprescribing,” they concluded.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer La, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

Prescription chronicity before or after follow-up was not measured and actual medication adherence could not be confirmed. Residual confounding by comorbidity could have existed, and the cross-sectional nature of linking GO-PIMs with frailty might have limited causal inference. Additionally, prescriptions were measured within Veterans Affairs pharmacy data, potentially underestimating GO-PIM prevalence, and the predominantly male population limited generalizability to gynecologic cancers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants and rewards from the Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, Cooperative Studies Program, National Institutes of Health, and American Heart Association. Some authors declared serving as consultants or receiving grants and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

High-risk medications defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and captured by the Geriatric Oncology Potentially Inappropriate Medication (GO-PIM) scale were prevalent in > one-third of veterans with solid and hematologic malignancies. Each additional GO-PIM was independently associated with higher risks for frailty at diagnosis, unplanned hospitalizations during follow-up, and death.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with cancer often use multiple chronic medications, raising risks for adverse events. Although several tools that identify PIMs have been developed that correlate with adverse cancer outcomes, their use is limited in busy oncology clinics. To improve implementation, researchers developed the GO-PIM scale using the NCCN’s list of high-risk medications.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the national Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry and electronic health records, which included 388,113 veterans newly diagnosed with solid or hematologic malignancies (median age, 69.3 years; 97.9% men; 76.1% non-Hispanic White and 17.3% Black individuals) between 2000 and 2022.
• They identified GO-PIMs using outpatient pharmacy records in the 90 days preceding cancer diagnosis. Each prescription for a specific GO-PIM was counted as one, including both individual drugs and drug classes listed in the GO-PIM scale.
• Study outcomes were frailty, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Baseline frailty at diagnosis was measured using the Veterans Affairs Frailty Index. The score ranged from 0 to 1, and higher scores indicated greater frailty. Patients were classified as nonfrail (score, ≤ 0.2), mildly frail (score, > 0.2 to 0.3), or moderate-to-severely frail (score, > 0.3).
• Lung (23.7%), prostate (21.5%), and gastrointestinal (20.5%) cancers were the most common, and the most frequent stages were IV (25.4%) and II (24.4%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 38.0% of veterans were prescribed ≥ 1 GO-PIMs at the time of cancer diagnosis, and the proportion increased to 56.1% among those with moderate-to-severe frailty.
• The most commonly prescribed classes of PIMs were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; 12.0%), opioids (10.4%), benzodiazepines (9.2%), and corticosteroids (9.2%). Among individual drugs, sertraline was the most common SSRI (4.3%), tramadol the most common opioid (5.3%), lorazepam the most common benzodiazepine (2.5%), and prednisone the most common corticosteroid (4.9%). Trends over time showed a steady increase in opioid prescriptions, peaking in 2014, followed by a subsequent decline, while prescriptions of benzodiazepines declined during the later years.
• After adjusting for age, cancer type and stage, and other covariates, each additional GO-PIM was associated with a 66% higher odds of mild or moderate-to-severe frailty at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66).
• After adjusting for frailty and covariates, each additional GO-PIM at diagnosis was associated with increased risks for unplanned hospitalizations and death (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.08 and 1.07, respectively). These associations remained stable in sensitivity analyses that restricted GO-PIMs to scheduled medications only, focused on patients who had initiated cancer treatment, and included only those aged ≥ 65 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Whether prescribed for supportive oncology care or for coexisting medical conditions, high-risk medications identified as PIMs should be reviewed and optimized in patients with cancer,” the authors of the study wrote.

“GO-PIMs offers a streamlined, oncology-specific approach to identifying high-risk prescribing, and complements existing efforts to improve supportive care, especially for older, frail patients,” remarked Mostafa R. Mohamed, MBBCH, PhD, MSc, and Erika E. Ramsdale, MD, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York in an invited commentary. “The next step lies in integrating tools such as GO-PIMs into everyday practice not only to flag high risk medications but also to support actionable changes in treatment planning and patient management, such as deprescribing,” they concluded.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer La, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

Prescription chronicity before or after follow-up was not measured and actual medication adherence could not be confirmed. Residual confounding by comorbidity could have existed, and the cross-sectional nature of linking GO-PIMs with frailty might have limited causal inference. Additionally, prescriptions were measured within Veterans Affairs pharmacy data, potentially underestimating GO-PIM prevalence, and the predominantly male population limited generalizability to gynecologic cancers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants and rewards from the Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, Cooperative Studies Program, National Institutes of Health, and American Heart Association. Some authors declared serving as consultants or receiving grants and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

About 1 in 10 veterans with early-stage cancer developed new persistent opioid use after curative‐intent surgery, though < 1% were diagnosed with opioid use disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Although effective pain control during cancer treatment is vital, prescribing opioids in this context may contribute to unsafe, long-term use and related adverse outcomes. Veterans, who have higher-than-average rates of mental health and substance use disorders, may be at particular risk for adverse events from opioid use related to cancer treatment.

Researchers conducted a national retrospective cohort study of 9213 US veterans (98% men) with stage 0-III cancer who were opioid-naive and underwent curative-intent surgery at Veterans Affairs medical centers between 2015 and 2016. Prostate (n = 2594; 28%), colorectal (n = 2393; 26%), bladder (n = 2302; 25%), and lung (n = 1252; 14%) cancers were the most common.

Primary outcomes were the number of days of co-prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids (an indicator of unsafe opioid prescribing) and new persistent opioid use, defined as receiving ≥ 1 opioid prescription at 90-180 days postsurgery. Opioid‐related adverse effects, including opioid use disorder and opioid overdose, were also reported.

Overall, 6970 (76%) of the participants were prescribed opioids at some point during the baseline treatment period (30 days before through 14 days after surgery). The mean morphine milligram equivalent (MME) was 172.5.

 

TAKEAWAY:

Overall, 4% of patients received co-prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids. The mean number of days of coprescription rose in tandem with opioid doses during the treatment period: from 0.48 days in the lowest MME quartile to 2.1 days in the highest quartile (P < .0001).

Over 1 in 10 patients (10.6%) developed new persistent opioid use. Those in the highest MME quartile had a 1.6-fold greater risk of developing new persistent opioid use than those with no opioid exposure during the treatment period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; P < .001). The percentage of patients with opioid prescriptions did decline over the 13-month follow-up, but among those who continued on opioids, the daily MME remained stable (median, 20 for month 1 and 30 for month 12).

Treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy increased the risk for new persistent opioid use (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001). Additional risk factors included having bladder, colorectal, lung, or other types of cancer (vs prostate cancer); stage I-III disease (vs stage 0); age 45-64 years (vs older); lower socioeconomic status; preoperative use of nonopioid pain medication; and a baseline history of anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder.

Over 13 months, 72 patients (0.78%) developed opioid use disorder, 3 (0.03%) experienced nonoverdose adverse events, and no opioid overdose occurred.

 

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a cancer diagnosis, treatment, and associated pain syndromes will require specific pain management strategies,” the authors wrote, “efforts should be taken to mitigate long‐term opioid use and its potential adverse effects in this population. They added that “both system‐level changes that involve preoperative evaluation planning as well as increased knowledge, awareness, and education among providers and patients about the risk of long‐term opioid use can guide strategies for effective and safe pain management.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Marilyn M. Schapira, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Opioid prescriptions outside the Veterans Affairs system were not captured. The study was based on filled opioid prescriptions, and actual patient consumption was unknown. Outpatient methadone prescriptions were not included. The study also excluded patients with breast cancer, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs. One author reported consulting for Moderna and TriNetX. Another author reported consulting for Genetic Chemistry, Thyme Care, Biofourmis, Onc.Al, Credit Suisse, Main Street Health, ConcertAI, Medscape, and G1 Therapeutics. The other authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About 1 in 10 veterans with early-stage cancer developed new persistent opioid use after curative‐intent surgery, though < 1% were diagnosed with opioid use disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Although effective pain control during cancer treatment is vital, prescribing opioids in this context may contribute to unsafe, long-term use and related adverse outcomes. Veterans, who have higher-than-average rates of mental health and substance use disorders, may be at particular risk for adverse events from opioid use related to cancer treatment.

Researchers conducted a national retrospective cohort study of 9213 US veterans (98% men) with stage 0-III cancer who were opioid-naive and underwent curative-intent surgery at Veterans Affairs medical centers between 2015 and 2016. Prostate (n = 2594; 28%), colorectal (n = 2393; 26%), bladder (n = 2302; 25%), and lung (n = 1252; 14%) cancers were the most common.

Primary outcomes were the number of days of co-prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids (an indicator of unsafe opioid prescribing) and new persistent opioid use, defined as receiving ≥ 1 opioid prescription at 90-180 days postsurgery. Opioid‐related adverse effects, including opioid use disorder and opioid overdose, were also reported.

Overall, 6970 (76%) of the participants were prescribed opioids at some point during the baseline treatment period (30 days before through 14 days after surgery). The mean morphine milligram equivalent (MME) was 172.5.

 

TAKEAWAY:

Overall, 4% of patients received co-prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids. The mean number of days of coprescription rose in tandem with opioid doses during the treatment period: from 0.48 days in the lowest MME quartile to 2.1 days in the highest quartile (P < .0001).

Over 1 in 10 patients (10.6%) developed new persistent opioid use. Those in the highest MME quartile had a 1.6-fold greater risk of developing new persistent opioid use than those with no opioid exposure during the treatment period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; P < .001). The percentage of patients with opioid prescriptions did decline over the 13-month follow-up, but among those who continued on opioids, the daily MME remained stable (median, 20 for month 1 and 30 for month 12).

Treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy increased the risk for new persistent opioid use (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001). Additional risk factors included having bladder, colorectal, lung, or other types of cancer (vs prostate cancer); stage I-III disease (vs stage 0); age 45-64 years (vs older); lower socioeconomic status; preoperative use of nonopioid pain medication; and a baseline history of anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder.

Over 13 months, 72 patients (0.78%) developed opioid use disorder, 3 (0.03%) experienced nonoverdose adverse events, and no opioid overdose occurred.

 

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a cancer diagnosis, treatment, and associated pain syndromes will require specific pain management strategies,” the authors wrote, “efforts should be taken to mitigate long‐term opioid use and its potential adverse effects in this population. They added that “both system‐level changes that involve preoperative evaluation planning as well as increased knowledge, awareness, and education among providers and patients about the risk of long‐term opioid use can guide strategies for effective and safe pain management.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Marilyn M. Schapira, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Opioid prescriptions outside the Veterans Affairs system were not captured. The study was based on filled opioid prescriptions, and actual patient consumption was unknown. Outpatient methadone prescriptions were not included. The study also excluded patients with breast cancer, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs. One author reported consulting for Moderna and TriNetX. Another author reported consulting for Genetic Chemistry, Thyme Care, Biofourmis, Onc.Al, Credit Suisse, Main Street Health, ConcertAI, Medscape, and G1 Therapeutics. The other authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About 1 in 10 veterans with early-stage cancer developed new persistent opioid use after curative‐intent surgery, though < 1% were diagnosed with opioid use disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Although effective pain control during cancer treatment is vital, prescribing opioids in this context may contribute to unsafe, long-term use and related adverse outcomes. Veterans, who have higher-than-average rates of mental health and substance use disorders, may be at particular risk for adverse events from opioid use related to cancer treatment.

Researchers conducted a national retrospective cohort study of 9213 US veterans (98% men) with stage 0-III cancer who were opioid-naive and underwent curative-intent surgery at Veterans Affairs medical centers between 2015 and 2016. Prostate (n = 2594; 28%), colorectal (n = 2393; 26%), bladder (n = 2302; 25%), and lung (n = 1252; 14%) cancers were the most common.

Primary outcomes were the number of days of co-prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids (an indicator of unsafe opioid prescribing) and new persistent opioid use, defined as receiving ≥ 1 opioid prescription at 90-180 days postsurgery. Opioid‐related adverse effects, including opioid use disorder and opioid overdose, were also reported.

Overall, 6970 (76%) of the participants were prescribed opioids at some point during the baseline treatment period (30 days before through 14 days after surgery). The mean morphine milligram equivalent (MME) was 172.5.

 

TAKEAWAY:

Overall, 4% of patients received co-prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids. The mean number of days of coprescription rose in tandem with opioid doses during the treatment period: from 0.48 days in the lowest MME quartile to 2.1 days in the highest quartile (P < .0001).

Over 1 in 10 patients (10.6%) developed new persistent opioid use. Those in the highest MME quartile had a 1.6-fold greater risk of developing new persistent opioid use than those with no opioid exposure during the treatment period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; P < .001). The percentage of patients with opioid prescriptions did decline over the 13-month follow-up, but among those who continued on opioids, the daily MME remained stable (median, 20 for month 1 and 30 for month 12).

Treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy increased the risk for new persistent opioid use (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001). Additional risk factors included having bladder, colorectal, lung, or other types of cancer (vs prostate cancer); stage I-III disease (vs stage 0); age 45-64 years (vs older); lower socioeconomic status; preoperative use of nonopioid pain medication; and a baseline history of anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder.

Over 13 months, 72 patients (0.78%) developed opioid use disorder, 3 (0.03%) experienced nonoverdose adverse events, and no opioid overdose occurred.

 

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a cancer diagnosis, treatment, and associated pain syndromes will require specific pain management strategies,” the authors wrote, “efforts should be taken to mitigate long‐term opioid use and its potential adverse effects in this population. They added that “both system‐level changes that involve preoperative evaluation planning as well as increased knowledge, awareness, and education among providers and patients about the risk of long‐term opioid use can guide strategies for effective and safe pain management.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Marilyn M. Schapira, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Opioid prescriptions outside the Veterans Affairs system were not captured. The study was based on filled opioid prescriptions, and actual patient consumption was unknown. Outpatient methadone prescriptions were not included. The study also excluded patients with breast cancer, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs. One author reported consulting for Moderna and TriNetX. Another author reported consulting for Genetic Chemistry, Thyme Care, Biofourmis, Onc.Al, Credit Suisse, Main Street Health, ConcertAI, Medscape, and G1 Therapeutics. The other authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery who received paclitaxel-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during surgery appeared to have comparable overall survival and disease-free survival rates to those who received cisplatin-based HIPEC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although the use of HIPEC remains controversial, cisplatin-based HIPEC during cytoreductive surgery may benefit patients with advanced ovarian cancer; however, there is less evidence for paclitaxel-based HIPEC, typically used in patients who are frail or intolerant to platinum agents.
• To compare the two regimens, researchers analyzed data from the National Registry of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis, which included 846 patients (mean age, 59 years) who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery with either cisplatin-based HIPEC (n = 325) or paclitaxel-based HIPEC (n = 521). After propensity score matching, there were 199 patients per group (total = 398).
• HIPEC was administered post-surgery with cisplatin (75-100 mg/m² for 90 minutes) or paclitaxel (120 mg/m² for 60 minutes), both at 42-43 °C.

TAKEAWAY:

• Using cisplatin as the reference group, the median overall survival was not significantly different between the two options (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .16); however, the median overall survival was 82 months in the paclitaxel group vs 58 months in the cisplatin group.
• Disease-free survival was also not significantly different between the 2 groups, with a median of 20 months in the cisplatin group and 21 months in the paclitaxel groups (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .70).
• Overall survival was comparable during the first 20 months of follow-up and disease-free survival was equivalent during the first 15 months of follow-up, based on a predefined equivalence margin of 0.1.
• Paclitaxel-based HIPEC was not associated with increased morbidity (odds ratio, 1.32; P = .06).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that cisplatin and paclitaxel are two safe and effective drugs to be used for HIPEC in [interval cytoreductive surgery] for advanced ovarian cancer. As cisplatin is the preferred drug according to strong evidence, paclitaxel could be a valuable alternative for patients with any contraindication to cisplatin, with similar oncological and perioperative outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Salud González Sánchez, MD, Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba, Spain, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of this study limited causal inference. The BRCA mutation status was not captured in the national registry. Additionally, the matching procedure resulted in a moderate sample size, which could have led to residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not declare any funding information and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery who received paclitaxel-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during surgery appeared to have comparable overall survival and disease-free survival rates to those who received cisplatin-based HIPEC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although the use of HIPEC remains controversial, cisplatin-based HIPEC during cytoreductive surgery may benefit patients with advanced ovarian cancer; however, there is less evidence for paclitaxel-based HIPEC, typically used in patients who are frail or intolerant to platinum agents.
• To compare the two regimens, researchers analyzed data from the National Registry of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis, which included 846 patients (mean age, 59 years) who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery with either cisplatin-based HIPEC (n = 325) or paclitaxel-based HIPEC (n = 521). After propensity score matching, there were 199 patients per group (total = 398).
• HIPEC was administered post-surgery with cisplatin (75-100 mg/m² for 90 minutes) or paclitaxel (120 mg/m² for 60 minutes), both at 42-43 °C.

TAKEAWAY:

• Using cisplatin as the reference group, the median overall survival was not significantly different between the two options (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .16); however, the median overall survival was 82 months in the paclitaxel group vs 58 months in the cisplatin group.
• Disease-free survival was also not significantly different between the 2 groups, with a median of 20 months in the cisplatin group and 21 months in the paclitaxel groups (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .70).
• Overall survival was comparable during the first 20 months of follow-up and disease-free survival was equivalent during the first 15 months of follow-up, based on a predefined equivalence margin of 0.1.
• Paclitaxel-based HIPEC was not associated with increased morbidity (odds ratio, 1.32; P = .06).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that cisplatin and paclitaxel are two safe and effective drugs to be used for HIPEC in [interval cytoreductive surgery] for advanced ovarian cancer. As cisplatin is the preferred drug according to strong evidence, paclitaxel could be a valuable alternative for patients with any contraindication to cisplatin, with similar oncological and perioperative outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Salud González Sánchez, MD, Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba, Spain, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of this study limited causal inference. The BRCA mutation status was not captured in the national registry. Additionally, the matching procedure resulted in a moderate sample size, which could have led to residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not declare any funding information and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery who received paclitaxel-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during surgery appeared to have comparable overall survival and disease-free survival rates to those who received cisplatin-based HIPEC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although the use of HIPEC remains controversial, cisplatin-based HIPEC during cytoreductive surgery may benefit patients with advanced ovarian cancer; however, there is less evidence for paclitaxel-based HIPEC, typically used in patients who are frail or intolerant to platinum agents.
• To compare the two regimens, researchers analyzed data from the National Registry of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis, which included 846 patients (mean age, 59 years) who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery with either cisplatin-based HIPEC (n = 325) or paclitaxel-based HIPEC (n = 521). After propensity score matching, there were 199 patients per group (total = 398).
• HIPEC was administered post-surgery with cisplatin (75-100 mg/m² for 90 minutes) or paclitaxel (120 mg/m² for 60 minutes), both at 42-43 °C.

TAKEAWAY:

• Using cisplatin as the reference group, the median overall survival was not significantly different between the two options (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .16); however, the median overall survival was 82 months in the paclitaxel group vs 58 months in the cisplatin group.
• Disease-free survival was also not significantly different between the 2 groups, with a median of 20 months in the cisplatin group and 21 months in the paclitaxel groups (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .70).
• Overall survival was comparable during the first 20 months of follow-up and disease-free survival was equivalent during the first 15 months of follow-up, based on a predefined equivalence margin of 0.1.
• Paclitaxel-based HIPEC was not associated with increased morbidity (odds ratio, 1.32; P = .06).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that cisplatin and paclitaxel are two safe and effective drugs to be used for HIPEC in [interval cytoreductive surgery] for advanced ovarian cancer. As cisplatin is the preferred drug according to strong evidence, paclitaxel could be a valuable alternative for patients with any contraindication to cisplatin, with similar oncological and perioperative outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Salud González Sánchez, MD, Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba, Spain, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of this study limited causal inference. The BRCA mutation status was not captured in the national registry. Additionally, the matching procedure resulted in a moderate sample size, which could have led to residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not declare any funding information and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A recent study found that 3 months of resistance training did not worsen lymphedema in breast cancer survivors and instead significantly improved fluid balance and increased upper extremity muscle mass. The edema index also improved, suggesting potential therapeutic benefits of intense resistance training for managing lymphedema.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lymphedema is a common adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that can limit mobility. Although strength training can have multiple benefits for breast cancer survivors, such as increased bone density and metabolism, data on whether more intense resistance training exacerbates lymphedema in this population are limited. Worries that more intense training will lead to or worsen lymphedema have typically led to cautious recommendations.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study involving 115 women with breast cancer (median age, 54 years; 96% White; 4% Black) between September 2022 and March 2024. Most (83%) underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), while 12% had axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). At baseline, 13% had clinical lymphedema, including 37% in the ALND group and 8% in the SLNB group.
• Participants attended resistance training sessions three times a week, with intensity escalation over 3 months. Exercises involved hand weights, resistance bands, and body weight (eg, pushups) to promote strength, mobility, and muscle hypertrophy.
• Bioimpedance analysis measured intracellular water, extracellular water, and total body water before and after exercise. Lymphedema was defined as more than a 3% increase in arm circumference discrepancy relative to preoperative ipsilateral arm measurements, along with an elevated edema index (extracellular water to total body water ratio).

TAKEAWAY:

• No participants experienced subjective or clinical worsening of lymphedema after completing the resistance training regimen.
• Lean mass in the affected arm increased from a median of 5.45 lb to 5.64 lb (P < .001), while lean mass in the unaffected arm rose from 5.51 lb to 5.53 lb (P < .001) after the resistance training.
• Overall, participants’ fluid balance improved. The edema index in both arms showed a significant reduction at training completion (mean, 0.383) vs baseline (mean, 0.385), indicating reduced lymphedema. Subgroup analysis of women who underwent SLNB showed similar improvements in the edema index.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings highlight the safety of strength and resistance training in a large group of patients with breast cancer during and after treatment,” the authors wrote. Beyond that, the authors noted, the results point to a potential role for resistance training in reducing lymphedema.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Parisa Shamsesfandabadi, MD, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

A major limitation was the absence of a control group, which prevented a direct comparison between the effects of exercise and the natural progression of lymphedema. The 3-month intervention provided limited insight into the long-term sustainability of benefits. Patient-reported outcomes were not included. Additionally, potential confounding variables such as diet, medication use, and baseline physical activity levels were not controlled for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. Several authors reported having ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study found that 3 months of resistance training did not worsen lymphedema in breast cancer survivors and instead significantly improved fluid balance and increased upper extremity muscle mass. The edema index also improved, suggesting potential therapeutic benefits of intense resistance training for managing lymphedema.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lymphedema is a common adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that can limit mobility. Although strength training can have multiple benefits for breast cancer survivors, such as increased bone density and metabolism, data on whether more intense resistance training exacerbates lymphedema in this population are limited. Worries that more intense training will lead to or worsen lymphedema have typically led to cautious recommendations.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study involving 115 women with breast cancer (median age, 54 years; 96% White; 4% Black) between September 2022 and March 2024. Most (83%) underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), while 12% had axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). At baseline, 13% had clinical lymphedema, including 37% in the ALND group and 8% in the SLNB group.
• Participants attended resistance training sessions three times a week, with intensity escalation over 3 months. Exercises involved hand weights, resistance bands, and body weight (eg, pushups) to promote strength, mobility, and muscle hypertrophy.
• Bioimpedance analysis measured intracellular water, extracellular water, and total body water before and after exercise. Lymphedema was defined as more than a 3% increase in arm circumference discrepancy relative to preoperative ipsilateral arm measurements, along with an elevated edema index (extracellular water to total body water ratio).

TAKEAWAY:

• No participants experienced subjective or clinical worsening of lymphedema after completing the resistance training regimen.
• Lean mass in the affected arm increased from a median of 5.45 lb to 5.64 lb (P < .001), while lean mass in the unaffected arm rose from 5.51 lb to 5.53 lb (P < .001) after the resistance training.
• Overall, participants’ fluid balance improved. The edema index in both arms showed a significant reduction at training completion (mean, 0.383) vs baseline (mean, 0.385), indicating reduced lymphedema. Subgroup analysis of women who underwent SLNB showed similar improvements in the edema index.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings highlight the safety of strength and resistance training in a large group of patients with breast cancer during and after treatment,” the authors wrote. Beyond that, the authors noted, the results point to a potential role for resistance training in reducing lymphedema.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Parisa Shamsesfandabadi, MD, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

A major limitation was the absence of a control group, which prevented a direct comparison between the effects of exercise and the natural progression of lymphedema. The 3-month intervention provided limited insight into the long-term sustainability of benefits. Patient-reported outcomes were not included. Additionally, potential confounding variables such as diet, medication use, and baseline physical activity levels were not controlled for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. Several authors reported having ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study found that 3 months of resistance training did not worsen lymphedema in breast cancer survivors and instead significantly improved fluid balance and increased upper extremity muscle mass. The edema index also improved, suggesting potential therapeutic benefits of intense resistance training for managing lymphedema.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lymphedema is a common adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that can limit mobility. Although strength training can have multiple benefits for breast cancer survivors, such as increased bone density and metabolism, data on whether more intense resistance training exacerbates lymphedema in this population are limited. Worries that more intense training will lead to or worsen lymphedema have typically led to cautious recommendations.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study involving 115 women with breast cancer (median age, 54 years; 96% White; 4% Black) between September 2022 and March 2024. Most (83%) underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), while 12% had axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). At baseline, 13% had clinical lymphedema, including 37% in the ALND group and 8% in the SLNB group.
• Participants attended resistance training sessions three times a week, with intensity escalation over 3 months. Exercises involved hand weights, resistance bands, and body weight (eg, pushups) to promote strength, mobility, and muscle hypertrophy.
• Bioimpedance analysis measured intracellular water, extracellular water, and total body water before and after exercise. Lymphedema was defined as more than a 3% increase in arm circumference discrepancy relative to preoperative ipsilateral arm measurements, along with an elevated edema index (extracellular water to total body water ratio).

TAKEAWAY:

• No participants experienced subjective or clinical worsening of lymphedema after completing the resistance training regimen.
• Lean mass in the affected arm increased from a median of 5.45 lb to 5.64 lb (P < .001), while lean mass in the unaffected arm rose from 5.51 lb to 5.53 lb (P < .001) after the resistance training.
• Overall, participants’ fluid balance improved. The edema index in both arms showed a significant reduction at training completion (mean, 0.383) vs baseline (mean, 0.385), indicating reduced lymphedema. Subgroup analysis of women who underwent SLNB showed similar improvements in the edema index.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings highlight the safety of strength and resistance training in a large group of patients with breast cancer during and after treatment,” the authors wrote. Beyond that, the authors noted, the results point to a potential role for resistance training in reducing lymphedema.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Parisa Shamsesfandabadi, MD, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

A major limitation was the absence of a control group, which prevented a direct comparison between the effects of exercise and the natural progression of lymphedema. The 3-month intervention provided limited insight into the long-term sustainability of benefits. Patient-reported outcomes were not included. Additionally, potential confounding variables such as diet, medication use, and baseline physical activity levels were not controlled for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. Several authors reported having ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adjuvant therapy with camrelizumab significantly improved 3-year event-free survival in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma compared with observation, according to findings from the phase 3 DIPPER trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• About 20%-30% of patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma experience disease relapse after definitive chemoradiotherapy. Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy can improve progression-free survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, but its effectiveness as adjuvant therapy in locoregionally advanced disease remains unclear.
• Researchers conducted the randomized phase 3 DIPPER trial at 11 centers in China, enrolling 450 patients with T4N1M0 or T1-4N2-3M0 nasopharyngeal carcinoma who had completed induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either adjuvant camrelizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 12 cycles; n = 226) or observation (n = 224). The median follow-up duration was 39 months.
• The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as freedom from distant metastasis, locoregional relapse, or death due to any cause; secondary endpoints included distant metastasis–free survival, locoregional relapse–free survival, overall survival, and safety.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received camrelizumab had a higher 3-year event-free survival rate than those who underwent observation (86.9% vs 77.3%; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; P = .01).
• The 3-year distant metastasis–free survival was also higher in the camrelizumab group (92.4% vs 84.5%; stratified HR, 0.54; P = .04).
• Patients in the camrelizumab group had higher locoregional relapse–free survival at 3 years than those in the observation group (92.8% vs 87.0%; stratified HR, 0.53; P = .046). However, the difference in overall survival between the groups was not significant.
• The safety analysis included 426 patients; 97.1% of those who received camrelizumab experienced at least one adverse event of any grade, the most common being reactive capillary endothelial proliferation compared with 85.5% of those in the observation group. Further, 11.2% of patients taking camrelizumab reported grade 3 or 4 events, including leukopenia and neutropenia compared with 3% in the observation group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The DIPPER trial demonstrated that adjuvant camrelizumab following induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improved event-free survival by 9.6% with a favorable safety profile in patients with locoregionally advanced [nasopharyngeal carcinoma],” the authors wrote.

“If survival is eventually proven to be improved with induction chemoimmunotherapy, can we begin asking about de-escalation of chemoradiotherapy” for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma? “This question is exceptionally important, given the significant long-term consequences of radiotherapy on survivors,” the author of an accompanying editorial wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ye-Lin Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included patients from an endemic region where nasopharyngeal carcinoma is predominantly linked to Epstein-Barr virus infection, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings to nonendemic populations. The open-label design may have introduced bias. Additionally, combined positive scores for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) were unavailable for some patients, potentially affecting the analysis of the correlation between PD-L1 expression and clinical outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases-National Science and Technology Major Project, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangzhou Municipal Health Commission, Key Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province, Overseas Expertise Introduction Project for Discipline Innovation, and Cancer Innovative Research Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Adjuvant therapy with camrelizumab significantly improved 3-year event-free survival in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma compared with observation, according to findings from the phase 3 DIPPER trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• About 20%-30% of patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma experience disease relapse after definitive chemoradiotherapy. Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy can improve progression-free survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, but its effectiveness as adjuvant therapy in locoregionally advanced disease remains unclear.
• Researchers conducted the randomized phase 3 DIPPER trial at 11 centers in China, enrolling 450 patients with T4N1M0 or T1-4N2-3M0 nasopharyngeal carcinoma who had completed induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either adjuvant camrelizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 12 cycles; n = 226) or observation (n = 224). The median follow-up duration was 39 months.
• The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as freedom from distant metastasis, locoregional relapse, or death due to any cause; secondary endpoints included distant metastasis–free survival, locoregional relapse–free survival, overall survival, and safety.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received camrelizumab had a higher 3-year event-free survival rate than those who underwent observation (86.9% vs 77.3%; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; P = .01).
• The 3-year distant metastasis–free survival was also higher in the camrelizumab group (92.4% vs 84.5%; stratified HR, 0.54; P = .04).
• Patients in the camrelizumab group had higher locoregional relapse–free survival at 3 years than those in the observation group (92.8% vs 87.0%; stratified HR, 0.53; P = .046). However, the difference in overall survival between the groups was not significant.
• The safety analysis included 426 patients; 97.1% of those who received camrelizumab experienced at least one adverse event of any grade, the most common being reactive capillary endothelial proliferation compared with 85.5% of those in the observation group. Further, 11.2% of patients taking camrelizumab reported grade 3 or 4 events, including leukopenia and neutropenia compared with 3% in the observation group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The DIPPER trial demonstrated that adjuvant camrelizumab following induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improved event-free survival by 9.6% with a favorable safety profile in patients with locoregionally advanced [nasopharyngeal carcinoma],” the authors wrote.

“If survival is eventually proven to be improved with induction chemoimmunotherapy, can we begin asking about de-escalation of chemoradiotherapy” for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma? “This question is exceptionally important, given the significant long-term consequences of radiotherapy on survivors,” the author of an accompanying editorial wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ye-Lin Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included patients from an endemic region where nasopharyngeal carcinoma is predominantly linked to Epstein-Barr virus infection, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings to nonendemic populations. The open-label design may have introduced bias. Additionally, combined positive scores for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) were unavailable for some patients, potentially affecting the analysis of the correlation between PD-L1 expression and clinical outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases-National Science and Technology Major Project, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangzhou Municipal Health Commission, Key Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province, Overseas Expertise Introduction Project for Discipline Innovation, and Cancer Innovative Research Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Adjuvant therapy with camrelizumab significantly improved 3-year event-free survival in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma compared with observation, according to findings from the phase 3 DIPPER trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• About 20%-30% of patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma experience disease relapse after definitive chemoradiotherapy. Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy can improve progression-free survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, but its effectiveness as adjuvant therapy in locoregionally advanced disease remains unclear.
• Researchers conducted the randomized phase 3 DIPPER trial at 11 centers in China, enrolling 450 patients with T4N1M0 or T1-4N2-3M0 nasopharyngeal carcinoma who had completed induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either adjuvant camrelizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 12 cycles; n = 226) or observation (n = 224). The median follow-up duration was 39 months.
• The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as freedom from distant metastasis, locoregional relapse, or death due to any cause; secondary endpoints included distant metastasis–free survival, locoregional relapse–free survival, overall survival, and safety.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received camrelizumab had a higher 3-year event-free survival rate than those who underwent observation (86.9% vs 77.3%; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; P = .01).
• The 3-year distant metastasis–free survival was also higher in the camrelizumab group (92.4% vs 84.5%; stratified HR, 0.54; P = .04).
• Patients in the camrelizumab group had higher locoregional relapse–free survival at 3 years than those in the observation group (92.8% vs 87.0%; stratified HR, 0.53; P = .046). However, the difference in overall survival between the groups was not significant.
• The safety analysis included 426 patients; 97.1% of those who received camrelizumab experienced at least one adverse event of any grade, the most common being reactive capillary endothelial proliferation compared with 85.5% of those in the observation group. Further, 11.2% of patients taking camrelizumab reported grade 3 or 4 events, including leukopenia and neutropenia compared with 3% in the observation group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The DIPPER trial demonstrated that adjuvant camrelizumab following induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improved event-free survival by 9.6% with a favorable safety profile in patients with locoregionally advanced [nasopharyngeal carcinoma],” the authors wrote.

“If survival is eventually proven to be improved with induction chemoimmunotherapy, can we begin asking about de-escalation of chemoradiotherapy” for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma? “This question is exceptionally important, given the significant long-term consequences of radiotherapy on survivors,” the author of an accompanying editorial wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ye-Lin Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included patients from an endemic region where nasopharyngeal carcinoma is predominantly linked to Epstein-Barr virus infection, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings to nonendemic populations. The open-label design may have introduced bias. Additionally, combined positive scores for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) were unavailable for some patients, potentially affecting the analysis of the correlation between PD-L1 expression and clinical outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases-National Science and Technology Major Project, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangzhou Municipal Health Commission, Key Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province, Overseas Expertise Introduction Project for Discipline Innovation, and Cancer Innovative Research Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A cross-sectional survey of patients preparing for their first radiation therapy consultation found that many patients worried about the physical effects of radiation therapy, including pain, memory loss, and nausea, and more than 60% said they were concerned about their ability to perform daily activities. Respondents reported a range of other worries, including the financial cost of treatment, transportation to treatment sessions, and the ability to continue working, as well as misconceptions about radiation therapy, such as concerns about emitting radiation to others.

METHODOLOGY:

• Toxicities from cancer therapies can significantly affect patients’ quality of life and may contribute to their apprehensions before starting a new treatment. Some studies have indicated that patients may have misconceptions about chemotherapy, but less is known about patients’ perceptions of radiation therapy.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients presenting for initial radiation therapy consultation at a single academic institution and analyzed responses from 214 patients (52% men; 51% White individuals) with no prior radiation therapy experience.
• The patients completed a 30-question electronic survey about radiation therapy perceptions and fears or concerns prior to their initial radiation consultation.
• Cancer diagnoses spanned 18 disease sites, with hematologic malignancies (21%), breast cancer (18%), and lung cancer (15%) being the most common.

TAKEAWAY:

• Physical adverse effects were the top concern for patients. These included radiation-induced pain (67%), memory loss (62%), nausea/vomiting (60%), and skin reactions (58%).
• Patients expressed concerns about the impact radiation therapy would have on daily activities, with 62% reporting being moderately or very concerned about their ability to perform daily activities and 37% worried about their ability to continue working. Other concerns included the ability to exercise (over half of respondents), financial cost (36%), and transportation to treatment sessions (26%).
• Misconceptions among patients were also common, with 48% expressing concerns about emitting radiation to others and 45% worrying about excreting radioactive urine or stool.
• Patients had varied levels of prior understanding of radiation therapy. Half of patients reported a complete lack of knowledge about radiation therapy, and 35% said they had read or heard stories about bad adverse effects.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that a survey administered prior to radiation oncology consultation can reveal patients’ primary concerns which could promote a more patient-centered discussion that addresses specific concerns and involves appropriate services to help the patient,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer Novak, MD, MS, Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included response bias and time constraints, which prevented many eligible patients from completing the survey. The single-institution design limits the generalizability of the findings. The survey results also showed a disproportionate focus on physical effects over the social impacts of radiation therapy, which could have limited the comprehensiveness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no specific funding for this work and no relevant competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cross-sectional survey of patients preparing for their first radiation therapy consultation found that many patients worried about the physical effects of radiation therapy, including pain, memory loss, and nausea, and more than 60% said they were concerned about their ability to perform daily activities. Respondents reported a range of other worries, including the financial cost of treatment, transportation to treatment sessions, and the ability to continue working, as well as misconceptions about radiation therapy, such as concerns about emitting radiation to others.

METHODOLOGY:

• Toxicities from cancer therapies can significantly affect patients’ quality of life and may contribute to their apprehensions before starting a new treatment. Some studies have indicated that patients may have misconceptions about chemotherapy, but less is known about patients’ perceptions of radiation therapy.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients presenting for initial radiation therapy consultation at a single academic institution and analyzed responses from 214 patients (52% men; 51% White individuals) with no prior radiation therapy experience.
• The patients completed a 30-question electronic survey about radiation therapy perceptions and fears or concerns prior to their initial radiation consultation.
• Cancer diagnoses spanned 18 disease sites, with hematologic malignancies (21%), breast cancer (18%), and lung cancer (15%) being the most common.

TAKEAWAY:

• Physical adverse effects were the top concern for patients. These included radiation-induced pain (67%), memory loss (62%), nausea/vomiting (60%), and skin reactions (58%).
• Patients expressed concerns about the impact radiation therapy would have on daily activities, with 62% reporting being moderately or very concerned about their ability to perform daily activities and 37% worried about their ability to continue working. Other concerns included the ability to exercise (over half of respondents), financial cost (36%), and transportation to treatment sessions (26%).
• Misconceptions among patients were also common, with 48% expressing concerns about emitting radiation to others and 45% worrying about excreting radioactive urine or stool.
• Patients had varied levels of prior understanding of radiation therapy. Half of patients reported a complete lack of knowledge about radiation therapy, and 35% said they had read or heard stories about bad adverse effects.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that a survey administered prior to radiation oncology consultation can reveal patients’ primary concerns which could promote a more patient-centered discussion that addresses specific concerns and involves appropriate services to help the patient,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer Novak, MD, MS, Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included response bias and time constraints, which prevented many eligible patients from completing the survey. The single-institution design limits the generalizability of the findings. The survey results also showed a disproportionate focus on physical effects over the social impacts of radiation therapy, which could have limited the comprehensiveness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no specific funding for this work and no relevant competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cross-sectional survey of patients preparing for their first radiation therapy consultation found that many patients worried about the physical effects of radiation therapy, including pain, memory loss, and nausea, and more than 60% said they were concerned about their ability to perform daily activities. Respondents reported a range of other worries, including the financial cost of treatment, transportation to treatment sessions, and the ability to continue working, as well as misconceptions about radiation therapy, such as concerns about emitting radiation to others.

METHODOLOGY:

• Toxicities from cancer therapies can significantly affect patients’ quality of life and may contribute to their apprehensions before starting a new treatment. Some studies have indicated that patients may have misconceptions about chemotherapy, but less is known about patients’ perceptions of radiation therapy.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients presenting for initial radiation therapy consultation at a single academic institution and analyzed responses from 214 patients (52% men; 51% White individuals) with no prior radiation therapy experience.
• The patients completed a 30-question electronic survey about radiation therapy perceptions and fears or concerns prior to their initial radiation consultation.
• Cancer diagnoses spanned 18 disease sites, with hematologic malignancies (21%), breast cancer (18%), and lung cancer (15%) being the most common.

TAKEAWAY:

• Physical adverse effects were the top concern for patients. These included radiation-induced pain (67%), memory loss (62%), nausea/vomiting (60%), and skin reactions (58%).
• Patients expressed concerns about the impact radiation therapy would have on daily activities, with 62% reporting being moderately or very concerned about their ability to perform daily activities and 37% worried about their ability to continue working. Other concerns included the ability to exercise (over half of respondents), financial cost (36%), and transportation to treatment sessions (26%).
• Misconceptions among patients were also common, with 48% expressing concerns about emitting radiation to others and 45% worrying about excreting radioactive urine or stool.
• Patients had varied levels of prior understanding of radiation therapy. Half of patients reported a complete lack of knowledge about radiation therapy, and 35% said they had read or heard stories about bad adverse effects.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that a survey administered prior to radiation oncology consultation can reveal patients’ primary concerns which could promote a more patient-centered discussion that addresses specific concerns and involves appropriate services to help the patient,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer Novak, MD, MS, Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included response bias and time constraints, which prevented many eligible patients from completing the survey. The single-institution design limits the generalizability of the findings. The survey results also showed a disproportionate focus on physical effects over the social impacts of radiation therapy, which could have limited the comprehensiveness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no specific funding for this work and no relevant competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Aggressive margin reduction with MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) led to a significantly lower incidence of late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 2 years compared with CT-guided SBRT in men with localized prostate cancer, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• MRI-guided SBRT is known to reduce planning margins in prostate cancer and lead to less acute toxicity compared with standard CT-guided SBRT. However, the long-term benefits of the MRI-guided approach remain unclear.
• To find out, researchers conducted the phase 3 MIRAGE trial, in which 156 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either MRI-guided SBRT with 2-mm margins or CT-guided SBRT with 4-mm margins.
• The MIRAGE trial initially reported the primary outcome of acute genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity within 90 days of SBRT.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated physician-reported late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, along with changes in various patient-reported quality-of-life scores over a 2-year follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a period of 2 years, MRI-guided SBRT was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities compared with CT-guided SBRT (27% vs 51%; P = .004). Similar outcomes were noted for grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities (1.4% with MRI vs 9.5% with CT; P = .025).
• Fewer patients who received MRI-guided SBRT reported deterioration in urinary irritation between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy — 14 of 73 patients (19.2%) in the MRI group vs 24 of 68 patients (35.3%) in the CT group (P = .031).
• Patients receiving MRI-guided SBRT were also less likely to experience clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function (odds ratio [OR], 0.444; P = .035) and sexual health score (OR, 0.366; P = .03).
• Between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy, 26.4% of patients (19 of 72) in the MRI group vs 42.3% (30 of 71) in the CT group reported clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our secondary analysis of a randomized trial revealed that aggressive planning for margin reduction with MRI guidance vs CT guidance for prostate SBRT led to lower physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and better bowel and sexual quality-of-life metrics over 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Amar U. Kishan, University of California Los Angeles, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of blinding in this study may have influenced both physician-scored toxicity assessments and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. The MIRAGE trial was not specifically designed with sufficient statistical power to evaluate the secondary analyses presented in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US Department of Defense. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees among other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Aggressive margin reduction with MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) led to a significantly lower incidence of late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 2 years compared with CT-guided SBRT in men with localized prostate cancer, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• MRI-guided SBRT is known to reduce planning margins in prostate cancer and lead to less acute toxicity compared with standard CT-guided SBRT. However, the long-term benefits of the MRI-guided approach remain unclear.
• To find out, researchers conducted the phase 3 MIRAGE trial, in which 156 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either MRI-guided SBRT with 2-mm margins or CT-guided SBRT with 4-mm margins.
• The MIRAGE trial initially reported the primary outcome of acute genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity within 90 days of SBRT.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated physician-reported late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, along with changes in various patient-reported quality-of-life scores over a 2-year follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a period of 2 years, MRI-guided SBRT was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities compared with CT-guided SBRT (27% vs 51%; P = .004). Similar outcomes were noted for grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities (1.4% with MRI vs 9.5% with CT; P = .025).
• Fewer patients who received MRI-guided SBRT reported deterioration in urinary irritation between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy — 14 of 73 patients (19.2%) in the MRI group vs 24 of 68 patients (35.3%) in the CT group (P = .031).
• Patients receiving MRI-guided SBRT were also less likely to experience clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function (odds ratio [OR], 0.444; P = .035) and sexual health score (OR, 0.366; P = .03).
• Between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy, 26.4% of patients (19 of 72) in the MRI group vs 42.3% (30 of 71) in the CT group reported clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our secondary analysis of a randomized trial revealed that aggressive planning for margin reduction with MRI guidance vs CT guidance for prostate SBRT led to lower physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and better bowel and sexual quality-of-life metrics over 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Amar U. Kishan, University of California Los Angeles, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of blinding in this study may have influenced both physician-scored toxicity assessments and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. The MIRAGE trial was not specifically designed with sufficient statistical power to evaluate the secondary analyses presented in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US Department of Defense. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees among other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Aggressive margin reduction with MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) led to a significantly lower incidence of late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 2 years compared with CT-guided SBRT in men with localized prostate cancer, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• MRI-guided SBRT is known to reduce planning margins in prostate cancer and lead to less acute toxicity compared with standard CT-guided SBRT. However, the long-term benefits of the MRI-guided approach remain unclear.
• To find out, researchers conducted the phase 3 MIRAGE trial, in which 156 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either MRI-guided SBRT with 2-mm margins or CT-guided SBRT with 4-mm margins.
• The MIRAGE trial initially reported the primary outcome of acute genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity within 90 days of SBRT.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated physician-reported late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, along with changes in various patient-reported quality-of-life scores over a 2-year follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a period of 2 years, MRI-guided SBRT was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities compared with CT-guided SBRT (27% vs 51%; P = .004). Similar outcomes were noted for grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities (1.4% with MRI vs 9.5% with CT; P = .025).
• Fewer patients who received MRI-guided SBRT reported deterioration in urinary irritation between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy — 14 of 73 patients (19.2%) in the MRI group vs 24 of 68 patients (35.3%) in the CT group (P = .031).
• Patients receiving MRI-guided SBRT were also less likely to experience clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function (odds ratio [OR], 0.444; P = .035) and sexual health score (OR, 0.366; P = .03).
• Between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy, 26.4% of patients (19 of 72) in the MRI group vs 42.3% (30 of 71) in the CT group reported clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our secondary analysis of a randomized trial revealed that aggressive planning for margin reduction with MRI guidance vs CT guidance for prostate SBRT led to lower physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and better bowel and sexual quality-of-life metrics over 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Amar U. Kishan, University of California Los Angeles, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of blinding in this study may have influenced both physician-scored toxicity assessments and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. The MIRAGE trial was not specifically designed with sufficient statistical power to evaluate the secondary analyses presented in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US Department of Defense. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees among other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.