User login
Train Advanced Practice Providers in Transnasal Endoscopy?
SAN DIEGO – , a pilot study showed.
“Our study showed that TNE can be performed safely by APPs, is well tolerated by patients, and significantly impacted patient management,” Whitney Kucher, PA-C, with Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, told GI & Hepatology News.
“The chief benefit of having APPs perform TNEs is increasing patient access and expediting management of upper GI [gastrointestinal] symptoms in patients,” said Kucher who presented the study at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.
The EvoEndo single-use endoscopy system received 510(k) clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration in early 2022.
The system includes a sterile, single-use, flexible gastroscope designed for unsedated transnasal upper endoscopy and a small portable video controller.
Unsedated TNE can be used to evaluate and diagnose a wide range of upper GI conditions that may require frequent monitoring, including eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), dysphagia, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett’s esophagus (BE), malabsorption, and abdominal pain.
Kucher and colleagues assessed the ability for APPs to use the EvoEndo system to perform safe and accurate esophageal assessment using in-office TNE, following training.
TNE training lasted about 4 weeks and consisted of a stepwise approach involving lectures, simulation-based training, and hands-on supervised TNEs (10 per APP).
Once training was completed, and after providing consent, 25 patients were enrolled to undergo supervised TNE by an APP. Their mean age was 55 years, and 58% were women.
Indications for TNE were uncontrolled GERD symptoms in 12 patients, history of EoE in six patients, high-risk screening for BE in five patients, and dysphagia in two patients.
Technical success was achieved in all but one patient (96%), and there were no adverse events.
All 25 patients completed the procedure, with 17 (72%) giving it a TNEase score of 1 (with ease/no discomfort) or 2 (mild/occasional discomfort). Only two patients reported a score of 4 (very uncomfortable) but still completed the exam.
The average TNE procedure time was 7.3 minutes.
TNE findings changed management in 23 of 25 (92%) patients. The test led to a change in proton pump inhibitor dosing or interval in 14 patients (56%). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) interval was extended in five patients (20%) and scheduled sooner in three patients (12%). Two patients (8%) had no change in management.
The study team said more data are needed in terms of learning curves, competency metrics, and health economics before widespread adoption can be supported.
“We are working on developing a standardized training plan so we can train more GI APPs in our department. We have plans to start an APP-driven TNE program in the coming months,” Kucher told GI & Hepatology News.
Caveats and Cautionary Notes
Commenting on this study for GI & Hepatology News, Amitabh Chak, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, both in Cleveland, noted that the results are “similar to older studies where TNE appeared quite promising and APPs could be trained. There have been previous studies that APPs can perform colonoscopies and EGDs.”
Chak cautioned that previous studies showed that it took at least 50 supervised examinations for APPs to achieve the needed skills.
“Intubation transnasally can be painful for patients if not done with skill. Cognitive skills take longer. The gastroesophageal junction is dynamic, and recognition of subtle pathology takes training,” Chak noted.
“TNE has been around at least two decades. The challenge with uptake of TNE for Barrett’s screening has been acceptance by primary care physicians, patients and payers,” Chak told GI & Hepatology News.
The study had no specific funding. Kucher reported having no relevant disclosures. Chak reported having relationships with US Endoscopy, Lucid Diagnostics, Steris Endoscopy/US Endoscopy, Microtek, and Interpace Diagnostics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – , a pilot study showed.
“Our study showed that TNE can be performed safely by APPs, is well tolerated by patients, and significantly impacted patient management,” Whitney Kucher, PA-C, with Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, told GI & Hepatology News.
“The chief benefit of having APPs perform TNEs is increasing patient access and expediting management of upper GI [gastrointestinal] symptoms in patients,” said Kucher who presented the study at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.
The EvoEndo single-use endoscopy system received 510(k) clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration in early 2022.
The system includes a sterile, single-use, flexible gastroscope designed for unsedated transnasal upper endoscopy and a small portable video controller.
Unsedated TNE can be used to evaluate and diagnose a wide range of upper GI conditions that may require frequent monitoring, including eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), dysphagia, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett’s esophagus (BE), malabsorption, and abdominal pain.
Kucher and colleagues assessed the ability for APPs to use the EvoEndo system to perform safe and accurate esophageal assessment using in-office TNE, following training.
TNE training lasted about 4 weeks and consisted of a stepwise approach involving lectures, simulation-based training, and hands-on supervised TNEs (10 per APP).
Once training was completed, and after providing consent, 25 patients were enrolled to undergo supervised TNE by an APP. Their mean age was 55 years, and 58% were women.
Indications for TNE were uncontrolled GERD symptoms in 12 patients, history of EoE in six patients, high-risk screening for BE in five patients, and dysphagia in two patients.
Technical success was achieved in all but one patient (96%), and there were no adverse events.
All 25 patients completed the procedure, with 17 (72%) giving it a TNEase score of 1 (with ease/no discomfort) or 2 (mild/occasional discomfort). Only two patients reported a score of 4 (very uncomfortable) but still completed the exam.
The average TNE procedure time was 7.3 minutes.
TNE findings changed management in 23 of 25 (92%) patients. The test led to a change in proton pump inhibitor dosing or interval in 14 patients (56%). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) interval was extended in five patients (20%) and scheduled sooner in three patients (12%). Two patients (8%) had no change in management.
The study team said more data are needed in terms of learning curves, competency metrics, and health economics before widespread adoption can be supported.
“We are working on developing a standardized training plan so we can train more GI APPs in our department. We have plans to start an APP-driven TNE program in the coming months,” Kucher told GI & Hepatology News.
Caveats and Cautionary Notes
Commenting on this study for GI & Hepatology News, Amitabh Chak, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, both in Cleveland, noted that the results are “similar to older studies where TNE appeared quite promising and APPs could be trained. There have been previous studies that APPs can perform colonoscopies and EGDs.”
Chak cautioned that previous studies showed that it took at least 50 supervised examinations for APPs to achieve the needed skills.
“Intubation transnasally can be painful for patients if not done with skill. Cognitive skills take longer. The gastroesophageal junction is dynamic, and recognition of subtle pathology takes training,” Chak noted.
“TNE has been around at least two decades. The challenge with uptake of TNE for Barrett’s screening has been acceptance by primary care physicians, patients and payers,” Chak told GI & Hepatology News.
The study had no specific funding. Kucher reported having no relevant disclosures. Chak reported having relationships with US Endoscopy, Lucid Diagnostics, Steris Endoscopy/US Endoscopy, Microtek, and Interpace Diagnostics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – , a pilot study showed.
“Our study showed that TNE can be performed safely by APPs, is well tolerated by patients, and significantly impacted patient management,” Whitney Kucher, PA-C, with Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, told GI & Hepatology News.
“The chief benefit of having APPs perform TNEs is increasing patient access and expediting management of upper GI [gastrointestinal] symptoms in patients,” said Kucher who presented the study at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.
The EvoEndo single-use endoscopy system received 510(k) clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration in early 2022.
The system includes a sterile, single-use, flexible gastroscope designed for unsedated transnasal upper endoscopy and a small portable video controller.
Unsedated TNE can be used to evaluate and diagnose a wide range of upper GI conditions that may require frequent monitoring, including eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), dysphagia, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett’s esophagus (BE), malabsorption, and abdominal pain.
Kucher and colleagues assessed the ability for APPs to use the EvoEndo system to perform safe and accurate esophageal assessment using in-office TNE, following training.
TNE training lasted about 4 weeks and consisted of a stepwise approach involving lectures, simulation-based training, and hands-on supervised TNEs (10 per APP).
Once training was completed, and after providing consent, 25 patients were enrolled to undergo supervised TNE by an APP. Their mean age was 55 years, and 58% were women.
Indications for TNE were uncontrolled GERD symptoms in 12 patients, history of EoE in six patients, high-risk screening for BE in five patients, and dysphagia in two patients.
Technical success was achieved in all but one patient (96%), and there were no adverse events.
All 25 patients completed the procedure, with 17 (72%) giving it a TNEase score of 1 (with ease/no discomfort) or 2 (mild/occasional discomfort). Only two patients reported a score of 4 (very uncomfortable) but still completed the exam.
The average TNE procedure time was 7.3 minutes.
TNE findings changed management in 23 of 25 (92%) patients. The test led to a change in proton pump inhibitor dosing or interval in 14 patients (56%). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) interval was extended in five patients (20%) and scheduled sooner in three patients (12%). Two patients (8%) had no change in management.
The study team said more data are needed in terms of learning curves, competency metrics, and health economics before widespread adoption can be supported.
“We are working on developing a standardized training plan so we can train more GI APPs in our department. We have plans to start an APP-driven TNE program in the coming months,” Kucher told GI & Hepatology News.
Caveats and Cautionary Notes
Commenting on this study for GI & Hepatology News, Amitabh Chak, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, both in Cleveland, noted that the results are “similar to older studies where TNE appeared quite promising and APPs could be trained. There have been previous studies that APPs can perform colonoscopies and EGDs.”
Chak cautioned that previous studies showed that it took at least 50 supervised examinations for APPs to achieve the needed skills.
“Intubation transnasally can be painful for patients if not done with skill. Cognitive skills take longer. The gastroesophageal junction is dynamic, and recognition of subtle pathology takes training,” Chak noted.
“TNE has been around at least two decades. The challenge with uptake of TNE for Barrett’s screening has been acceptance by primary care physicians, patients and payers,” Chak told GI & Hepatology News.
The study had no specific funding. Kucher reported having no relevant disclosures. Chak reported having relationships with US Endoscopy, Lucid Diagnostics, Steris Endoscopy/US Endoscopy, Microtek, and Interpace Diagnostics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AI-Enhanced Digital Collaborative Care Improves IBS Symptoms
SAN DIEGO — seen at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, an observational study found.
Symptom tracking at 4-week intervals showed that “almost everybody got better” regardless of IBS subtype, with relief starting in the first 4 weeks, Stephen Lupe, PsyD, gastrointestinal psychologist and director of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, said in an interview with GI & Hepatology News.
The findings were presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.
Digital Boost to Collaborative Care Model
The combination of dietary interventions and brain-gut behavioral therapy has demonstrated excellent outcomes for patients with IBS, but patients struggle to access these needed services, Lupe noted. A medical home collaborative care model in which patients get care from a multidisciplinary team has been shown to be a good way to successfully deliver this combination of care.
“When you do collaborative in-person care, people get better quicker,” Lupe said.
However, scaling access to this model remains a challenge. For their study, Cleveland Clinic researchers added an AI-enhanced digital platform, Ayble Health, to the in-person collaborative care model to expand access to disease-management services and evaluated whether it improved clinical outcomes for study’s 171 participants, who were recruited via social media advertisements.
Here’s how the platform works. Once a patient enrolls in Ayble Health, a personalized care plan is recommended based on a virtual visit, screening questionnaire, and baseline survey.
The platform includes brain-gut programs, including guided audio content on mindfulness, hypnosis, meditation, cognitive behavioral therapy, and breathing techniques; personalized nutrition support to find and remove trigger foods, a food barcode scanner, and a comprehensive groceries database; and AI-powered wellness tools to help manage and track symptoms. Lupe worked with Ayble Health to develop the platform’s behavioral health content and care pathways.
Patients may choose to follow any combination of three care pathways: A care team overseen by gastro-psychologists, dietitians, and gastroenterologists; a holistic nutrition program including a personalized elimination diet; and a brain-gut behavioral therapy program with gut-directed hypnosis, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy. They go at their own pace, can connect with Ayble Health’s virtual care team to help with education and goal setting, and continue to consult their Cleveland Clinic providers as needed for evaluation and treatment.
“The care team is still there. We’ve just augmented it to make sure that as many people as possible get behavioral skills training and dietary support, with monitoring between visits — instead of the traditional, ‘I’ll see you in 6 months approach,” Lupe explained.
IBS Symptom Scores Improve
Of the study’s 171 patients, 20 had IBS-diarrhea, 23 had IBS-constipation, 32 had IBS-mixed, and 8 had IBS-unspecified. The remaining 88 patients reported IBS without indication of subtype.
At intake, all patients had active IBS symptoms, with scores ≥ 75 on the IBS symptom severity scale (IBS-SSS). Most patients enrolled in more than one care pathway, and 95% of participants completed at least 4 weeks on their chosen pathways.
Overall, patients saw an average 140-point decrease in IBS-SSS from intake through follow-up lasting up to 42 weeks. A drop in IBS-SSS score ≥ 50 points was considered a clinically meaningful change.
Symptom improvements occurred as early as week 4, were sustained and were uniform across IBS subtypes, suggesting that the AI-enhanced digital collaborative care model has wide utility in patients with IBS, Lupe said.
Patients with the most severe IBS symptoms showed the greatest improvement, but even 50% of those with mild symptoms had clinically meaningful changes in IBS-SSS.
Improvement in IBS symptoms was seen across all care pathways, but the combination of multiple pathways improved outcomes better than a single care pathway alone. The combination of nutrition and brain-gut behavioral therapy demonstrated the greatest reduction in IBS-SSS scores and proportion of patients achieving clinically meaningful results (95%).
The digital comprehensive car model for IBS is now “up and running” at Cleveland Clinic, and the team plans to proactively reach out to patients with gastrointestinal disorders recently seen at their center to alert them to the availability of this tool, Lupe said.
A randomized controlled trial is planned to further validate these observational findings, he added.
‘Wave of the Future’
The digital collaborative care model is “innovative, and I think is the wave of the future,” Kyle Staller, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.
“These digital platforms bundle nondrug options, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, dietary therapy, hypnotherapy, so patients can choose what suits them, rather than the gastroenterologist hunting down each individual resource, which requires a lot of work,” Staller said.
The study “provides real-world evidence that a deliberative, digital, collaborative care model that houses various types of nondrug IBS treatment under one roof can provide meaningful benefit to patients,” Staller told GI & Hepatology News.
Importantly, he said, “patients chose which option they wanted. At the end of the day, the way that we should be thinking about IBS care is really making sure that we engage the patient with treatment choices,” Staller said.
This study had no specific funding. Three authors had relationships with Ayble Health. Lupe is a scientific advisor for Boomerang Health and paid lecturer for Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Staller disclosed having relationships with Mahana Therapeutics, Ardelyx Inc, Gemelli Biotech, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — seen at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, an observational study found.
Symptom tracking at 4-week intervals showed that “almost everybody got better” regardless of IBS subtype, with relief starting in the first 4 weeks, Stephen Lupe, PsyD, gastrointestinal psychologist and director of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, said in an interview with GI & Hepatology News.
The findings were presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.
Digital Boost to Collaborative Care Model
The combination of dietary interventions and brain-gut behavioral therapy has demonstrated excellent outcomes for patients with IBS, but patients struggle to access these needed services, Lupe noted. A medical home collaborative care model in which patients get care from a multidisciplinary team has been shown to be a good way to successfully deliver this combination of care.
“When you do collaborative in-person care, people get better quicker,” Lupe said.
However, scaling access to this model remains a challenge. For their study, Cleveland Clinic researchers added an AI-enhanced digital platform, Ayble Health, to the in-person collaborative care model to expand access to disease-management services and evaluated whether it improved clinical outcomes for study’s 171 participants, who were recruited via social media advertisements.
Here’s how the platform works. Once a patient enrolls in Ayble Health, a personalized care plan is recommended based on a virtual visit, screening questionnaire, and baseline survey.
The platform includes brain-gut programs, including guided audio content on mindfulness, hypnosis, meditation, cognitive behavioral therapy, and breathing techniques; personalized nutrition support to find and remove trigger foods, a food barcode scanner, and a comprehensive groceries database; and AI-powered wellness tools to help manage and track symptoms. Lupe worked with Ayble Health to develop the platform’s behavioral health content and care pathways.
Patients may choose to follow any combination of three care pathways: A care team overseen by gastro-psychologists, dietitians, and gastroenterologists; a holistic nutrition program including a personalized elimination diet; and a brain-gut behavioral therapy program with gut-directed hypnosis, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy. They go at their own pace, can connect with Ayble Health’s virtual care team to help with education and goal setting, and continue to consult their Cleveland Clinic providers as needed for evaluation and treatment.
“The care team is still there. We’ve just augmented it to make sure that as many people as possible get behavioral skills training and dietary support, with monitoring between visits — instead of the traditional, ‘I’ll see you in 6 months approach,” Lupe explained.
IBS Symptom Scores Improve
Of the study’s 171 patients, 20 had IBS-diarrhea, 23 had IBS-constipation, 32 had IBS-mixed, and 8 had IBS-unspecified. The remaining 88 patients reported IBS without indication of subtype.
At intake, all patients had active IBS symptoms, with scores ≥ 75 on the IBS symptom severity scale (IBS-SSS). Most patients enrolled in more than one care pathway, and 95% of participants completed at least 4 weeks on their chosen pathways.
Overall, patients saw an average 140-point decrease in IBS-SSS from intake through follow-up lasting up to 42 weeks. A drop in IBS-SSS score ≥ 50 points was considered a clinically meaningful change.
Symptom improvements occurred as early as week 4, were sustained and were uniform across IBS subtypes, suggesting that the AI-enhanced digital collaborative care model has wide utility in patients with IBS, Lupe said.
Patients with the most severe IBS symptoms showed the greatest improvement, but even 50% of those with mild symptoms had clinically meaningful changes in IBS-SSS.
Improvement in IBS symptoms was seen across all care pathways, but the combination of multiple pathways improved outcomes better than a single care pathway alone. The combination of nutrition and brain-gut behavioral therapy demonstrated the greatest reduction in IBS-SSS scores and proportion of patients achieving clinically meaningful results (95%).
The digital comprehensive car model for IBS is now “up and running” at Cleveland Clinic, and the team plans to proactively reach out to patients with gastrointestinal disorders recently seen at their center to alert them to the availability of this tool, Lupe said.
A randomized controlled trial is planned to further validate these observational findings, he added.
‘Wave of the Future’
The digital collaborative care model is “innovative, and I think is the wave of the future,” Kyle Staller, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.
“These digital platforms bundle nondrug options, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, dietary therapy, hypnotherapy, so patients can choose what suits them, rather than the gastroenterologist hunting down each individual resource, which requires a lot of work,” Staller said.
The study “provides real-world evidence that a deliberative, digital, collaborative care model that houses various types of nondrug IBS treatment under one roof can provide meaningful benefit to patients,” Staller told GI & Hepatology News.
Importantly, he said, “patients chose which option they wanted. At the end of the day, the way that we should be thinking about IBS care is really making sure that we engage the patient with treatment choices,” Staller said.
This study had no specific funding. Three authors had relationships with Ayble Health. Lupe is a scientific advisor for Boomerang Health and paid lecturer for Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Staller disclosed having relationships with Mahana Therapeutics, Ardelyx Inc, Gemelli Biotech, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — seen at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, an observational study found.
Symptom tracking at 4-week intervals showed that “almost everybody got better” regardless of IBS subtype, with relief starting in the first 4 weeks, Stephen Lupe, PsyD, gastrointestinal psychologist and director of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, said in an interview with GI & Hepatology News.
The findings were presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.
Digital Boost to Collaborative Care Model
The combination of dietary interventions and brain-gut behavioral therapy has demonstrated excellent outcomes for patients with IBS, but patients struggle to access these needed services, Lupe noted. A medical home collaborative care model in which patients get care from a multidisciplinary team has been shown to be a good way to successfully deliver this combination of care.
“When you do collaborative in-person care, people get better quicker,” Lupe said.
However, scaling access to this model remains a challenge. For their study, Cleveland Clinic researchers added an AI-enhanced digital platform, Ayble Health, to the in-person collaborative care model to expand access to disease-management services and evaluated whether it improved clinical outcomes for study’s 171 participants, who were recruited via social media advertisements.
Here’s how the platform works. Once a patient enrolls in Ayble Health, a personalized care plan is recommended based on a virtual visit, screening questionnaire, and baseline survey.
The platform includes brain-gut programs, including guided audio content on mindfulness, hypnosis, meditation, cognitive behavioral therapy, and breathing techniques; personalized nutrition support to find and remove trigger foods, a food barcode scanner, and a comprehensive groceries database; and AI-powered wellness tools to help manage and track symptoms. Lupe worked with Ayble Health to develop the platform’s behavioral health content and care pathways.
Patients may choose to follow any combination of three care pathways: A care team overseen by gastro-psychologists, dietitians, and gastroenterologists; a holistic nutrition program including a personalized elimination diet; and a brain-gut behavioral therapy program with gut-directed hypnosis, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy. They go at their own pace, can connect with Ayble Health’s virtual care team to help with education and goal setting, and continue to consult their Cleveland Clinic providers as needed for evaluation and treatment.
“The care team is still there. We’ve just augmented it to make sure that as many people as possible get behavioral skills training and dietary support, with monitoring between visits — instead of the traditional, ‘I’ll see you in 6 months approach,” Lupe explained.
IBS Symptom Scores Improve
Of the study’s 171 patients, 20 had IBS-diarrhea, 23 had IBS-constipation, 32 had IBS-mixed, and 8 had IBS-unspecified. The remaining 88 patients reported IBS without indication of subtype.
At intake, all patients had active IBS symptoms, with scores ≥ 75 on the IBS symptom severity scale (IBS-SSS). Most patients enrolled in more than one care pathway, and 95% of participants completed at least 4 weeks on their chosen pathways.
Overall, patients saw an average 140-point decrease in IBS-SSS from intake through follow-up lasting up to 42 weeks. A drop in IBS-SSS score ≥ 50 points was considered a clinically meaningful change.
Symptom improvements occurred as early as week 4, were sustained and were uniform across IBS subtypes, suggesting that the AI-enhanced digital collaborative care model has wide utility in patients with IBS, Lupe said.
Patients with the most severe IBS symptoms showed the greatest improvement, but even 50% of those with mild symptoms had clinically meaningful changes in IBS-SSS.
Improvement in IBS symptoms was seen across all care pathways, but the combination of multiple pathways improved outcomes better than a single care pathway alone. The combination of nutrition and brain-gut behavioral therapy demonstrated the greatest reduction in IBS-SSS scores and proportion of patients achieving clinically meaningful results (95%).
The digital comprehensive car model for IBS is now “up and running” at Cleveland Clinic, and the team plans to proactively reach out to patients with gastrointestinal disorders recently seen at their center to alert them to the availability of this tool, Lupe said.
A randomized controlled trial is planned to further validate these observational findings, he added.
‘Wave of the Future’
The digital collaborative care model is “innovative, and I think is the wave of the future,” Kyle Staller, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.
“These digital platforms bundle nondrug options, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, dietary therapy, hypnotherapy, so patients can choose what suits them, rather than the gastroenterologist hunting down each individual resource, which requires a lot of work,” Staller said.
The study “provides real-world evidence that a deliberative, digital, collaborative care model that houses various types of nondrug IBS treatment under one roof can provide meaningful benefit to patients,” Staller told GI & Hepatology News.
Importantly, he said, “patients chose which option they wanted. At the end of the day, the way that we should be thinking about IBS care is really making sure that we engage the patient with treatment choices,” Staller said.
This study had no specific funding. Three authors had relationships with Ayble Health. Lupe is a scientific advisor for Boomerang Health and paid lecturer for Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Staller disclosed having relationships with Mahana Therapeutics, Ardelyx Inc, Gemelli Biotech, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DDW 2025
Exercise Can Help Protect Against Cancer Fatigue, Depression
Lingering fatigue and depression are more common among women than men cancer survivors and often lead to a decrease in recreational physical activities in all patients, new data showed.
However, moderate physical activity was linked to an almost 50% lower risk for cancer-related fatigue, and both moderate and vigorous physical activity were associated with a two- to fivefold reduced risk for depression among cancer survivors, according to the analysis presented at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2025.
The findings “highlight the importance of providing special attention and tailored interventions such as exercise programs, support groups, and mind-body behavioral techniques for vulnerable groups to help effectively manage fatigue and improve participation in recreational activities as they are an essential aspect of quality of life,” Simo Du, MD, a resident at NYC Health + Hospitals and Jacobi Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, said in a news release.
Du noted that, during her residency, cancer-related fatigue was a common complaint among patients, affecting “not just their daily activities but also their overall quality of life and mental health, making tasks like climbing stairs, doing groceries, or laundry overwhelming.”
Cancer-related fatigue affects more than 80% of patients who receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy, while depression affects around 25% of patients. Unlike typical fatigue, cancer-related fatigue can linger for weeks, months, or even years after treatment, Du explained.
Despite its high prevalence, cancer-related fatigue remains “overlooked and undertreated,” she noted during a conference press briefing. In addition, cancer-related fatigue can affect men and women differently.
To investigate further, Du and her colleagues analyzed National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1552 cancer survivors (736 men and 816 women).
After adjusting for age, race, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities, women cancer survivors were more likely to experience fatigue (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; P < .017) and depression (OR, 1.32; P = .341) related to their cancer compared with men cancer survivors.
Du said there are likely multiple reasons behind the sex differences observed.
Women may, for instance, be more likely to experience side effects from chemotherapy, radiation, and long-term use of endocrine treatments because of slower drug clearance, which can lead to higher concentrations and a stronger immune response that may heighten inflammatory side effects.
In multivariate logistic regression analysis, cancer-related fatigue (OR, 1.93; P = .002) and depression (OR, 2.28; P = .011) were both strongly associated with reduced moderate recreational activities, such as brisk walking, biking, golfing, and light yard work.
The data also showed a protective role for physical activity. For patients who engaged in moderate physical activity, their risk for cancer-related fatigue (OR, 0.52; P = .002) and depression (OR, 0.41; P = .006) was significantly reduced, Du reported.
For depression (but not cancer-related fatigue), “the higher the intensity of physical activity, the higher the protective effects, with almost 4-5 times the reduction of the depression,” Du noted.
Although the NHANES uses standardized protocols designed to minimize biases, Du said a limitation of the current study is the use of self-reported data and the fact that women could potentially overreport fatigue symptoms and men could potentially underreport symptoms of depression.
Looking ahead, Du and her colleagues are planning studies to assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions on cancer-related fatigue and explore the connection between cancer-related fatigue and different mechanisms, such as inflammatory markers, to see if gender modifies the association.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a senior physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said that, because the dataset is cross-sectional, it is unclear whether people who were more tired weren’t exercising or if people who weren’t exercising were more tired.
However, Ligibel explained, a huge body of literature has demonstrated that exercise is “the most efficient remedy for fatigue,” and it likely helps with depression too.
In fact, in a recent survey of patients with cancer conducted by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, slightly more than half of patients reported that their oncologist talked about exercise and diet during clinic visits, Ligibel said. Provider recommendations for exercise and diet were associated with positive changes in these behaviors.
“Roughly half of oncologists now give exercise advice; that figure is a lot more than it was a few years ago, but it’s still not universal,” Ligibel said.
The study had no specific funding. Du and Ligibel had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lingering fatigue and depression are more common among women than men cancer survivors and often lead to a decrease in recreational physical activities in all patients, new data showed.
However, moderate physical activity was linked to an almost 50% lower risk for cancer-related fatigue, and both moderate and vigorous physical activity were associated with a two- to fivefold reduced risk for depression among cancer survivors, according to the analysis presented at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2025.
The findings “highlight the importance of providing special attention and tailored interventions such as exercise programs, support groups, and mind-body behavioral techniques for vulnerable groups to help effectively manage fatigue and improve participation in recreational activities as they are an essential aspect of quality of life,” Simo Du, MD, a resident at NYC Health + Hospitals and Jacobi Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, said in a news release.
Du noted that, during her residency, cancer-related fatigue was a common complaint among patients, affecting “not just their daily activities but also their overall quality of life and mental health, making tasks like climbing stairs, doing groceries, or laundry overwhelming.”
Cancer-related fatigue affects more than 80% of patients who receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy, while depression affects around 25% of patients. Unlike typical fatigue, cancer-related fatigue can linger for weeks, months, or even years after treatment, Du explained.
Despite its high prevalence, cancer-related fatigue remains “overlooked and undertreated,” she noted during a conference press briefing. In addition, cancer-related fatigue can affect men and women differently.
To investigate further, Du and her colleagues analyzed National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1552 cancer survivors (736 men and 816 women).
After adjusting for age, race, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities, women cancer survivors were more likely to experience fatigue (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; P < .017) and depression (OR, 1.32; P = .341) related to their cancer compared with men cancer survivors.
Du said there are likely multiple reasons behind the sex differences observed.
Women may, for instance, be more likely to experience side effects from chemotherapy, radiation, and long-term use of endocrine treatments because of slower drug clearance, which can lead to higher concentrations and a stronger immune response that may heighten inflammatory side effects.
In multivariate logistic regression analysis, cancer-related fatigue (OR, 1.93; P = .002) and depression (OR, 2.28; P = .011) were both strongly associated with reduced moderate recreational activities, such as brisk walking, biking, golfing, and light yard work.
The data also showed a protective role for physical activity. For patients who engaged in moderate physical activity, their risk for cancer-related fatigue (OR, 0.52; P = .002) and depression (OR, 0.41; P = .006) was significantly reduced, Du reported.
For depression (but not cancer-related fatigue), “the higher the intensity of physical activity, the higher the protective effects, with almost 4-5 times the reduction of the depression,” Du noted.
Although the NHANES uses standardized protocols designed to minimize biases, Du said a limitation of the current study is the use of self-reported data and the fact that women could potentially overreport fatigue symptoms and men could potentially underreport symptoms of depression.
Looking ahead, Du and her colleagues are planning studies to assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions on cancer-related fatigue and explore the connection between cancer-related fatigue and different mechanisms, such as inflammatory markers, to see if gender modifies the association.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a senior physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said that, because the dataset is cross-sectional, it is unclear whether people who were more tired weren’t exercising or if people who weren’t exercising were more tired.
However, Ligibel explained, a huge body of literature has demonstrated that exercise is “the most efficient remedy for fatigue,” and it likely helps with depression too.
In fact, in a recent survey of patients with cancer conducted by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, slightly more than half of patients reported that their oncologist talked about exercise and diet during clinic visits, Ligibel said. Provider recommendations for exercise and diet were associated with positive changes in these behaviors.
“Roughly half of oncologists now give exercise advice; that figure is a lot more than it was a few years ago, but it’s still not universal,” Ligibel said.
The study had no specific funding. Du and Ligibel had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lingering fatigue and depression are more common among women than men cancer survivors and often lead to a decrease in recreational physical activities in all patients, new data showed.
However, moderate physical activity was linked to an almost 50% lower risk for cancer-related fatigue, and both moderate and vigorous physical activity were associated with a two- to fivefold reduced risk for depression among cancer survivors, according to the analysis presented at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2025.
The findings “highlight the importance of providing special attention and tailored interventions such as exercise programs, support groups, and mind-body behavioral techniques for vulnerable groups to help effectively manage fatigue and improve participation in recreational activities as they are an essential aspect of quality of life,” Simo Du, MD, a resident at NYC Health + Hospitals and Jacobi Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, said in a news release.
Du noted that, during her residency, cancer-related fatigue was a common complaint among patients, affecting “not just their daily activities but also their overall quality of life and mental health, making tasks like climbing stairs, doing groceries, or laundry overwhelming.”
Cancer-related fatigue affects more than 80% of patients who receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy, while depression affects around 25% of patients. Unlike typical fatigue, cancer-related fatigue can linger for weeks, months, or even years after treatment, Du explained.
Despite its high prevalence, cancer-related fatigue remains “overlooked and undertreated,” she noted during a conference press briefing. In addition, cancer-related fatigue can affect men and women differently.
To investigate further, Du and her colleagues analyzed National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1552 cancer survivors (736 men and 816 women).
After adjusting for age, race, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities, women cancer survivors were more likely to experience fatigue (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; P < .017) and depression (OR, 1.32; P = .341) related to their cancer compared with men cancer survivors.
Du said there are likely multiple reasons behind the sex differences observed.
Women may, for instance, be more likely to experience side effects from chemotherapy, radiation, and long-term use of endocrine treatments because of slower drug clearance, which can lead to higher concentrations and a stronger immune response that may heighten inflammatory side effects.
In multivariate logistic regression analysis, cancer-related fatigue (OR, 1.93; P = .002) and depression (OR, 2.28; P = .011) were both strongly associated with reduced moderate recreational activities, such as brisk walking, biking, golfing, and light yard work.
The data also showed a protective role for physical activity. For patients who engaged in moderate physical activity, their risk for cancer-related fatigue (OR, 0.52; P = .002) and depression (OR, 0.41; P = .006) was significantly reduced, Du reported.
For depression (but not cancer-related fatigue), “the higher the intensity of physical activity, the higher the protective effects, with almost 4-5 times the reduction of the depression,” Du noted.
Although the NHANES uses standardized protocols designed to minimize biases, Du said a limitation of the current study is the use of self-reported data and the fact that women could potentially overreport fatigue symptoms and men could potentially underreport symptoms of depression.
Looking ahead, Du and her colleagues are planning studies to assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions on cancer-related fatigue and explore the connection between cancer-related fatigue and different mechanisms, such as inflammatory markers, to see if gender modifies the association.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a senior physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said that, because the dataset is cross-sectional, it is unclear whether people who were more tired weren’t exercising or if people who weren’t exercising were more tired.
However, Ligibel explained, a huge body of literature has demonstrated that exercise is “the most efficient remedy for fatigue,” and it likely helps with depression too.
In fact, in a recent survey of patients with cancer conducted by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, slightly more than half of patients reported that their oncologist talked about exercise and diet during clinic visits, Ligibel said. Provider recommendations for exercise and diet were associated with positive changes in these behaviors.
“Roughly half of oncologists now give exercise advice; that figure is a lot more than it was a few years ago, but it’s still not universal,” Ligibel said.
The study had no specific funding. Du and Ligibel had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR 2025
Can a Polygenic Risk Score Turn the Tide on Prostate Cancer Screening?
Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.
The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.
“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.
Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.
“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.
An Adjunct to Screening?
The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.
The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.
Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.
Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.
Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.
When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.
Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway.
However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.
Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).
“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.
However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.
Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”
“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.
The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.
The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.
“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned.
“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.
In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”
The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.
The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.
“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.
Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.
“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.
An Adjunct to Screening?
The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.
The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.
Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.
Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.
Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.
When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.
Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway.
However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.
Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).
“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.
However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.
Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”
“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.
The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.
The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.
“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned.
“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.
In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”
The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.
The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.
“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.
Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.
“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.
An Adjunct to Screening?
The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.
The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.
Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.
Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.
Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.
When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.
Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway.
However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.
Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).
“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.
However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.
Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”
“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.
The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.
The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.
“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned.
“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.
In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”
The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Targeted CRC Outreach Doubles Screening Rates, Cuts Deaths by Half
SAN DIEGO — A 20-year initiative by Kaiser Permanente Northern California that assessed colorectal cancer (CRC) screening status and offered flexible options for screening has made a huge difference in CRC incidence, deaths, and racial disparities, an analysis showed.
“The program promptly doubled the proportion of people up to date with screening,” reported lead investigator Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, AGAF, a research scientist with Kaiser’s Division of Research, at a press briefing held on April 24, ahead of a presentation at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.
Additionally, , he said.
“Ten years ago, there were big gaps in cancer risk and death, especially among our Black patients. Now, those differences are nearly gone,” Corley said.
Closing the Gap
A systematic CRC screening program was implemented across Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The program included proactive outreach to members who were overdue for screening and mailing them fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for at-home use.
Corley and colleagues tracked screening status and CRC incidence and mortality annually from 2000 to 2019 among about 1.1 million members aged 50-75 years across 22 medical centers of the integrated healthcare system. The cohort included American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and White members.
Screening rates via FIT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy more than doubled after starting the program, from about 37% in the early years to about 80% within a few years, and it stayed that high through 2019, Corley reported.
“Importantly, these large increases occurred across the whole population with only small differences,” he said.
For example, about 76% of Hispanic members, 77% of Black members, 82% of White members, and 83% of Asian members were up to date in the later years and through 2019.
“This shows that systematic, comparable outreach can provide a level playing field for completion of preventive care,” Corley said.
After an expected early uptick in CRC incidence due to early detection, incidence later declined and by 2019 had dropped approximately 30% across the groups.
Long-Standing Disparities Erased
CRC deaths also fell by about 50% across all groups, with the largest decline among Black members, Corley noted.
Racial and ethnic disparities in both CRC incidence and mortality have long existed, with Black patients in particular experiencing higher risks and worse outcomes, likely from a mixture of risk factors and healthcare utilization, Corley said.
Offering outreach and equal access to screening in the Kaiser program erased those long-standing disparities.
“It’s remarkable that some of these large differences in mortality by race and ethnicity that we saw two decades ago, and which are found throughout the United States, are now similar to small chance variation in the population,” Corley said.
Flexibility was key to getting more people screened, he noted. “It’s about reaching people at their homes and offering a choice to patients. It’s an astonishingly simple concept.”
It’s important to note that these findings stem from a large, integrated healthcare system, which may differ from other settings, although similar outreach strategies have succeeded in safety net clinics and smaller practices, Corley added.
By boosting screening rates to 80%, the health system reached the level that’s essentially been defined in the past as our goal of screening programs, said Loren Laine, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and chair of this year’s DDW.
“It shows that if health systems institute programmatic screening for all their covered individuals, they could markedly increase screening, said Laine, who also served as moderator of the press briefing.
“Most importantly, of course, [screening] was associated with a reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and deaths,” he said.
The study had no commercial funding. Corley reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Laine’s disclosures included consulting and/or relationships with Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Celgene, Intercept, Merck, and Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — A 20-year initiative by Kaiser Permanente Northern California that assessed colorectal cancer (CRC) screening status and offered flexible options for screening has made a huge difference in CRC incidence, deaths, and racial disparities, an analysis showed.
“The program promptly doubled the proportion of people up to date with screening,” reported lead investigator Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, AGAF, a research scientist with Kaiser’s Division of Research, at a press briefing held on April 24, ahead of a presentation at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.
Additionally, , he said.
“Ten years ago, there were big gaps in cancer risk and death, especially among our Black patients. Now, those differences are nearly gone,” Corley said.
Closing the Gap
A systematic CRC screening program was implemented across Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The program included proactive outreach to members who were overdue for screening and mailing them fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for at-home use.
Corley and colleagues tracked screening status and CRC incidence and mortality annually from 2000 to 2019 among about 1.1 million members aged 50-75 years across 22 medical centers of the integrated healthcare system. The cohort included American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and White members.
Screening rates via FIT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy more than doubled after starting the program, from about 37% in the early years to about 80% within a few years, and it stayed that high through 2019, Corley reported.
“Importantly, these large increases occurred across the whole population with only small differences,” he said.
For example, about 76% of Hispanic members, 77% of Black members, 82% of White members, and 83% of Asian members were up to date in the later years and through 2019.
“This shows that systematic, comparable outreach can provide a level playing field for completion of preventive care,” Corley said.
After an expected early uptick in CRC incidence due to early detection, incidence later declined and by 2019 had dropped approximately 30% across the groups.
Long-Standing Disparities Erased
CRC deaths also fell by about 50% across all groups, with the largest decline among Black members, Corley noted.
Racial and ethnic disparities in both CRC incidence and mortality have long existed, with Black patients in particular experiencing higher risks and worse outcomes, likely from a mixture of risk factors and healthcare utilization, Corley said.
Offering outreach and equal access to screening in the Kaiser program erased those long-standing disparities.
“It’s remarkable that some of these large differences in mortality by race and ethnicity that we saw two decades ago, and which are found throughout the United States, are now similar to small chance variation in the population,” Corley said.
Flexibility was key to getting more people screened, he noted. “It’s about reaching people at their homes and offering a choice to patients. It’s an astonishingly simple concept.”
It’s important to note that these findings stem from a large, integrated healthcare system, which may differ from other settings, although similar outreach strategies have succeeded in safety net clinics and smaller practices, Corley added.
By boosting screening rates to 80%, the health system reached the level that’s essentially been defined in the past as our goal of screening programs, said Loren Laine, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and chair of this year’s DDW.
“It shows that if health systems institute programmatic screening for all their covered individuals, they could markedly increase screening, said Laine, who also served as moderator of the press briefing.
“Most importantly, of course, [screening] was associated with a reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and deaths,” he said.
The study had no commercial funding. Corley reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Laine’s disclosures included consulting and/or relationships with Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Celgene, Intercept, Merck, and Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — A 20-year initiative by Kaiser Permanente Northern California that assessed colorectal cancer (CRC) screening status and offered flexible options for screening has made a huge difference in CRC incidence, deaths, and racial disparities, an analysis showed.
“The program promptly doubled the proportion of people up to date with screening,” reported lead investigator Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, AGAF, a research scientist with Kaiser’s Division of Research, at a press briefing held on April 24, ahead of a presentation at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.
Additionally, , he said.
“Ten years ago, there were big gaps in cancer risk and death, especially among our Black patients. Now, those differences are nearly gone,” Corley said.
Closing the Gap
A systematic CRC screening program was implemented across Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The program included proactive outreach to members who were overdue for screening and mailing them fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for at-home use.
Corley and colleagues tracked screening status and CRC incidence and mortality annually from 2000 to 2019 among about 1.1 million members aged 50-75 years across 22 medical centers of the integrated healthcare system. The cohort included American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and White members.
Screening rates via FIT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy more than doubled after starting the program, from about 37% in the early years to about 80% within a few years, and it stayed that high through 2019, Corley reported.
“Importantly, these large increases occurred across the whole population with only small differences,” he said.
For example, about 76% of Hispanic members, 77% of Black members, 82% of White members, and 83% of Asian members were up to date in the later years and through 2019.
“This shows that systematic, comparable outreach can provide a level playing field for completion of preventive care,” Corley said.
After an expected early uptick in CRC incidence due to early detection, incidence later declined and by 2019 had dropped approximately 30% across the groups.
Long-Standing Disparities Erased
CRC deaths also fell by about 50% across all groups, with the largest decline among Black members, Corley noted.
Racial and ethnic disparities in both CRC incidence and mortality have long existed, with Black patients in particular experiencing higher risks and worse outcomes, likely from a mixture of risk factors and healthcare utilization, Corley said.
Offering outreach and equal access to screening in the Kaiser program erased those long-standing disparities.
“It’s remarkable that some of these large differences in mortality by race and ethnicity that we saw two decades ago, and which are found throughout the United States, are now similar to small chance variation in the population,” Corley said.
Flexibility was key to getting more people screened, he noted. “It’s about reaching people at their homes and offering a choice to patients. It’s an astonishingly simple concept.”
It’s important to note that these findings stem from a large, integrated healthcare system, which may differ from other settings, although similar outreach strategies have succeeded in safety net clinics and smaller practices, Corley added.
By boosting screening rates to 80%, the health system reached the level that’s essentially been defined in the past as our goal of screening programs, said Loren Laine, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and chair of this year’s DDW.
“It shows that if health systems institute programmatic screening for all their covered individuals, they could markedly increase screening, said Laine, who also served as moderator of the press briefing.
“Most importantly, of course, [screening] was associated with a reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and deaths,” he said.
The study had no commercial funding. Corley reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Laine’s disclosures included consulting and/or relationships with Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Celgene, Intercept, Merck, and Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DDW 2025
Salvage Rendezvous Technique on Par With Precut Sphincterotomy for Tough Biliary Access
, new data suggest.
Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.
In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now.
A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.
There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.
The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).
There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).
Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.
In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.
None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.
“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”
Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.
Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.
This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data suggest.
Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.
In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now.
A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.
There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.
The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).
There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).
Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.
In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.
None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.
“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”
Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.
Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.
This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data suggest.
Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.
In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now.
A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.
There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.
The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).
There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).
Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.
In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.
None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.
“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”
Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.
Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.
This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Can a Polygenic Risk Score Turn the Tide on Prostate Cancer Screening?
Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.
The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.
“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.
Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.
“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.
An Adjunct to Screening?
The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.
The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.
Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.
Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.
Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.
When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.
Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway.
However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.
Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).
“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.
However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.
Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”
“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.
The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.
The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.
“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned.
“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.
In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”
The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.
The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.
“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.
Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.
“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.
An Adjunct to Screening?
The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.
The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.
Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.
Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.
Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.
When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.
Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway.
However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.
Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).
“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.
However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.
Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”
“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.
The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.
The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.
“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned.
“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.
In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”
The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.
The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.
“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.
Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.
“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.
An Adjunct to Screening?
The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.
The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.
Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.
Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.
Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.
When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.
Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway.
However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.
Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).
“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.
However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.
Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”
“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.
The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.
The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.
“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned.
“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.
In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”
The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Simple Score Predicts Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Young Adults
While colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has declined overall due to screening, early-onset CRC is on the rise, particularly in individuals younger than 45 years — an age group not currently recommended for CRC screening.
Studies have shown that the risk for early-onset advanced neoplasia varies based on several factors, including sex, race, family history of CRC, smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and diet.
A score that incorporates some of these factors to identify which younger adults are at higher risk for advanced neoplasia, a precursor to CRC, could support earlier, more targeted screening interventions.
The simple clinical score can be easily calculated by primary care providers in the office, Carole Macaron, MD, lead author of the study and a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, told GI & Hepatology News. “Patients with a high-risk score would be referred for colorectal cancer screening.”
The study was published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.
To develop and validate their risk score, Macaron and colleagues did a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9446 individuals aged 18-44 years (mean age, 36.8 years; 61% women) who underwent colonoscopy at their center.
Advanced neoplasia was defined as a tubular adenoma ≥ 10 mm or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia, sessile serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm, sessile serrated polyp with dysplasia, traditional serrated adenoma, or invasive adenocarcinoma.
The 346 (3.7%) individuals found to have advanced neoplasia served as the case group, and the remainder with normal colonoscopy or non-advanced neoplasia served as controls.
A multivariate logistic regression model identified three independent risk factors significantly associated with advanced neoplasia: Higher body mass index (BMI; P = .0157), former and current tobacco use (P = .0009 and P = .0015, respectively), and having a first-degree relative with CRC < 60 years (P < .0001) or other family history of CRC (P = .0117).
The researchers used these risk factors to develop a risk prediction score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia, which ranged from a risk of 1.8% for patients with a score of 1 to 22.2% for those with a score of 12. Individuals with a score of ≥ 9 had a 14% or higher risk for advanced neoplasia.
Based on the risk model, the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia in an asymptomatic 32-year-old overweight individual, with a history of previous tobacco use and a first-degree relative younger than age 60 with CRC would be 20.3%, Macaron and colleagues noted.
The model demonstrated “moderate” discriminatory power in the validation set (C-statistic: 0.645), indicating that it can effectively differentiate between individuals at a higher and lower risk for advanced neoplasia.
Additionally, the authors are exploring ways to improve the discriminatory power of the score, possibly by including additional risk factors.
Given the score is calculated using easily obtainable risk factors for individuals younger than 45 who are at risk for early-onset colorectal neoplasia, it could help guide individualized screening decisions for those in whom screening is not currently offered, Macaron said. It could also serve as a tool for risk communication and shared decision-making.
Integration into electronic health records or online calculators may enhance its accessibility and clinical utility.
The authors noted that this retrospective study was conducted at a single center caring mainly for White non-Hispanic adults, limiting generalizability to the general population and to other races and ethnicities.
Validation in Real-World Setting Needed
“There are no currently accepted advanced colorectal neoplasia risk scores that are used in general practice,” said Steven H. Itzkowitz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine, oncological sciences, and medical education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “If these lesions can be predicted, it would enable these young individuals to undergo screening colonoscopy, which could detect and remove these lesions, thereby preventing CRC.”
Many of the known risk factors (family history, high BMI, or smoking) for CRC development at any age are incorporated within this tool, so it should be feasible to collect these data,” said Itzkowitz, who was not involved with the study.
But he cautioned that accurate and adequate family histories are not always performed. Clinicians also may not have considered combining these factors into an actionable risk score.
“If this score can be externally validated in a real-world setting, it could be a useful addition in our efforts to lower CRC rates among young individuals,” Itzkowitz said.
The study did not receive any funding. Macaron and Itzkowitz reported no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has declined overall due to screening, early-onset CRC is on the rise, particularly in individuals younger than 45 years — an age group not currently recommended for CRC screening.
Studies have shown that the risk for early-onset advanced neoplasia varies based on several factors, including sex, race, family history of CRC, smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and diet.
A score that incorporates some of these factors to identify which younger adults are at higher risk for advanced neoplasia, a precursor to CRC, could support earlier, more targeted screening interventions.
The simple clinical score can be easily calculated by primary care providers in the office, Carole Macaron, MD, lead author of the study and a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, told GI & Hepatology News. “Patients with a high-risk score would be referred for colorectal cancer screening.”
The study was published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.
To develop and validate their risk score, Macaron and colleagues did a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9446 individuals aged 18-44 years (mean age, 36.8 years; 61% women) who underwent colonoscopy at their center.
Advanced neoplasia was defined as a tubular adenoma ≥ 10 mm or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia, sessile serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm, sessile serrated polyp with dysplasia, traditional serrated adenoma, or invasive adenocarcinoma.
The 346 (3.7%) individuals found to have advanced neoplasia served as the case group, and the remainder with normal colonoscopy or non-advanced neoplasia served as controls.
A multivariate logistic regression model identified three independent risk factors significantly associated with advanced neoplasia: Higher body mass index (BMI; P = .0157), former and current tobacco use (P = .0009 and P = .0015, respectively), and having a first-degree relative with CRC < 60 years (P < .0001) or other family history of CRC (P = .0117).
The researchers used these risk factors to develop a risk prediction score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia, which ranged from a risk of 1.8% for patients with a score of 1 to 22.2% for those with a score of 12. Individuals with a score of ≥ 9 had a 14% or higher risk for advanced neoplasia.
Based on the risk model, the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia in an asymptomatic 32-year-old overweight individual, with a history of previous tobacco use and a first-degree relative younger than age 60 with CRC would be 20.3%, Macaron and colleagues noted.
The model demonstrated “moderate” discriminatory power in the validation set (C-statistic: 0.645), indicating that it can effectively differentiate between individuals at a higher and lower risk for advanced neoplasia.
Additionally, the authors are exploring ways to improve the discriminatory power of the score, possibly by including additional risk factors.
Given the score is calculated using easily obtainable risk factors for individuals younger than 45 who are at risk for early-onset colorectal neoplasia, it could help guide individualized screening decisions for those in whom screening is not currently offered, Macaron said. It could also serve as a tool for risk communication and shared decision-making.
Integration into electronic health records or online calculators may enhance its accessibility and clinical utility.
The authors noted that this retrospective study was conducted at a single center caring mainly for White non-Hispanic adults, limiting generalizability to the general population and to other races and ethnicities.
Validation in Real-World Setting Needed
“There are no currently accepted advanced colorectal neoplasia risk scores that are used in general practice,” said Steven H. Itzkowitz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine, oncological sciences, and medical education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “If these lesions can be predicted, it would enable these young individuals to undergo screening colonoscopy, which could detect and remove these lesions, thereby preventing CRC.”
Many of the known risk factors (family history, high BMI, or smoking) for CRC development at any age are incorporated within this tool, so it should be feasible to collect these data,” said Itzkowitz, who was not involved with the study.
But he cautioned that accurate and adequate family histories are not always performed. Clinicians also may not have considered combining these factors into an actionable risk score.
“If this score can be externally validated in a real-world setting, it could be a useful addition in our efforts to lower CRC rates among young individuals,” Itzkowitz said.
The study did not receive any funding. Macaron and Itzkowitz reported no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has declined overall due to screening, early-onset CRC is on the rise, particularly in individuals younger than 45 years — an age group not currently recommended for CRC screening.
Studies have shown that the risk for early-onset advanced neoplasia varies based on several factors, including sex, race, family history of CRC, smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and diet.
A score that incorporates some of these factors to identify which younger adults are at higher risk for advanced neoplasia, a precursor to CRC, could support earlier, more targeted screening interventions.
The simple clinical score can be easily calculated by primary care providers in the office, Carole Macaron, MD, lead author of the study and a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, told GI & Hepatology News. “Patients with a high-risk score would be referred for colorectal cancer screening.”
The study was published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.
To develop and validate their risk score, Macaron and colleagues did a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9446 individuals aged 18-44 years (mean age, 36.8 years; 61% women) who underwent colonoscopy at their center.
Advanced neoplasia was defined as a tubular adenoma ≥ 10 mm or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia, sessile serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm, sessile serrated polyp with dysplasia, traditional serrated adenoma, or invasive adenocarcinoma.
The 346 (3.7%) individuals found to have advanced neoplasia served as the case group, and the remainder with normal colonoscopy or non-advanced neoplasia served as controls.
A multivariate logistic regression model identified three independent risk factors significantly associated with advanced neoplasia: Higher body mass index (BMI; P = .0157), former and current tobacco use (P = .0009 and P = .0015, respectively), and having a first-degree relative with CRC < 60 years (P < .0001) or other family history of CRC (P = .0117).
The researchers used these risk factors to develop a risk prediction score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia, which ranged from a risk of 1.8% for patients with a score of 1 to 22.2% for those with a score of 12. Individuals with a score of ≥ 9 had a 14% or higher risk for advanced neoplasia.
Based on the risk model, the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia in an asymptomatic 32-year-old overweight individual, with a history of previous tobacco use and a first-degree relative younger than age 60 with CRC would be 20.3%, Macaron and colleagues noted.
The model demonstrated “moderate” discriminatory power in the validation set (C-statistic: 0.645), indicating that it can effectively differentiate between individuals at a higher and lower risk for advanced neoplasia.
Additionally, the authors are exploring ways to improve the discriminatory power of the score, possibly by including additional risk factors.
Given the score is calculated using easily obtainable risk factors for individuals younger than 45 who are at risk for early-onset colorectal neoplasia, it could help guide individualized screening decisions for those in whom screening is not currently offered, Macaron said. It could also serve as a tool for risk communication and shared decision-making.
Integration into electronic health records or online calculators may enhance its accessibility and clinical utility.
The authors noted that this retrospective study was conducted at a single center caring mainly for White non-Hispanic adults, limiting generalizability to the general population and to other races and ethnicities.
Validation in Real-World Setting Needed
“There are no currently accepted advanced colorectal neoplasia risk scores that are used in general practice,” said Steven H. Itzkowitz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine, oncological sciences, and medical education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “If these lesions can be predicted, it would enable these young individuals to undergo screening colonoscopy, which could detect and remove these lesions, thereby preventing CRC.”
Many of the known risk factors (family history, high BMI, or smoking) for CRC development at any age are incorporated within this tool, so it should be feasible to collect these data,” said Itzkowitz, who was not involved with the study.
But he cautioned that accurate and adequate family histories are not always performed. Clinicians also may not have considered combining these factors into an actionable risk score.
“If this score can be externally validated in a real-world setting, it could be a useful addition in our efforts to lower CRC rates among young individuals,” Itzkowitz said.
The study did not receive any funding. Macaron and Itzkowitz reported no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A ‘Fool’s Errand’? Picking a Winner for Treating Early-Stage NSCLC
For years, the default definitive treatment for patients with early-stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been surgical resection, typically minimally invasive lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection.
Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the European Society for Medical Oncology all list surgery (in particular, lobectomy) as the primary local therapy for fit, operable patients with stage I NSCLC.
More recently, however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), also called stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, has emerged as a definitive treatment option for stage I NSCLC, especially for older, less fit patients who are unsuitable or deemed high-risk for surgery.
“We see patients in our practice who cannot undergo surgery or who may not have adequate lung function to be able to tolerate surgery, and for these patients who are medically inoperable or surgically unresectable, radiation therapy may be a reasonable option,” Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, professor and lung cancer specialist, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.
Given some encouraging data suggesting that SBRT could provide similar survival outcomes and be an alternative to surgery for operable disease, SBRT is also increasingly being considered in these early-stage patients. However, other evidence indicates that SBRT may be associated with higher rates of regional and distant recurrences and worse long-term survival, particularly in operable patients.
What may ultimately matter most is carefully selecting operable patients who undergo SBRT.
Aggarwal has encountered certain patients who are fit for surgery but would rather have radiation therapy. “This is an individual decision, and these patients are usually discussed at tumor board and in multidisciplinary discussions to really make sure that they’re making the right decision for themselves,” she explained.
The Pros and Cons of SBRT
SBRT is a nonsurgical approach in which precision high-dose radiation is delivered in just a few fractions — typically, 3, 5, or 8, depending on institutional protocols and tumor characteristics.
SBRT is performed on an outpatient basis, usually over 1-2 weeks, with most patients able to resume usual activities with minimal to no delay. Surgery, on the other hand, requires a hospital stay and takes most people about 2-6 weeks to return to regular activities. SBRT also avoids anesthesia and surgical incisions, both of which come with risks.
The data on SBRT in early-stage NSCLC are mixed. While some studies indicate that SBRT comes with promising survival outcomes, other research has reported worse survival and recurrence rates.
One potential reason for higher recurrence rates with SBRT is the lack of pathologic nodal staging, which only happens after surgery, as well as lower rates of nodal evaluation with endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy before surgery or SBRT. Without nodal assessments, clinicians may miss a more aggressive histology or more advanced nodal stage, which would go undertreated if patients received SBRT.
Latest Data in Large Cohort
A recent study published in Lung Cancer indicated that, when carefully selected, operable patients with early NSCLC have comparable survival with lobectomy or SBRT.
In the study, Dutch researchers took an in-depth look at survival and recurrence patterns in a retrospective cohort study of 2183 patients with clinical stage I NSCLC treated with minimally invasive lobectomy or SBRT. The study includes one of the largest cohorts to date, with robust data collection on baseline characteristics, comorbidities, tumor size, performance status, and follow-up.
Patients receiving SBRT were typically older (median age, 74 vs 67 years), had higher comorbidity burdens (Charlson index ≥ 5 in 57% of SBRT patients vs 23% of surgical patients), worse performance status, and lower lung function. To adjust for these differences, the researchers used propensity score weighting so the SBRT group’s baseline characteristics were comparable with those in the surgery group.
The surgery cohort had more invasive nodal evaluation: 21% underwent endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy vs only 12% in the SBRT group. The vast majority in both groups had PET-CT staging, reflecting modern imaging-based workups.
While 5-year local recurrence rates between the two groups were similar (13.1% for SBRT vs 12.1% for surgery), the 5-year regional recurrence rate was significantly higher after SBRT than lobectomy (18.1% vs 14.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), as was the distant metastasis rate (26.2% vs 20.2%; HR, 0.72).
Mortality at 30 days was higher after surgery than SBRT (1.0% vs 0.2%). And in the unadjusted analysis, 5-year overall survival was significantly better with lobectomy than SBRT (70.2% vs 40.3%).
However, when the analysis only included patients with similar baseline characteristics, overall survival was no longer significantly different in the two groups (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.20). Lung cancer–specific mortality was also not significantly different between the two treatments (HR, 1.08), but the study was underpowered to detect significant differences in this outcome on the basis of a relatively low number of deaths from NSCLC.
Still, even after comparing similar patients, recurrence-free survival was notably better with surgery (HR, 0.70), due to fewer regional recurrences and distant metastases. Overall, 13% of the surgical cohort had nodal upstaging at pathology, meaning that even in clinically “node-negative” stage I disease, a subset of patients had unsuspected nodal involvement.
Patients receiving SBRT did not have pathologic nodal staging, raising the possibility of occult micrometastases. The authors noted that the proportion of SBRT patients with occult lymph node metastases is likely at least equal to that in the surgery group, but these metastases would go undetected without pathologic assessment.
Missing potential occult micrometastases in the SBRT group likely contributed to higher regional recurrence rates over time. By improving nodal staging, more patients with occult lymph node metastases who would be undertreated with SBRT may be identified before treatment, the authors said.
What Do Experts Say?
So, is SBRT an option for patients with stage I NSCLC?
Opinions vary.
“If you got one shot for a cure, then you want to do the surgery because that’s what results in a cure,” said Raja Flores, MD, chairman of Thoracic Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.
Flores noted that the survival rate with surgery is high in this population. “There’s really nothing out there that can compare,” he said.
In his view, surgery “remains the gold standard.” However, “radiation could be considered in nonsurgical candidates,” he said.
The most recent NCCN guidelines align with Flores’ take. The guidelines say that SBRT is indicated for stage IA-IIA (N0) NSCLC in patients who are deemed “medically inoperable, high surgical risk as determined by thoracic surgeon, and those who decline surgery after thoracic surgical consultation.”
Clifford G. Robinson, MD, agreed. “In the United States, we largely treat patients with SBRT who are medically inoperable or high-risk operable and a much smaller proportion who decline surgery,” said Robinson, professor of radiation oncology and chief of SBRT at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis. “Many patients who are deemed operable are not offered SBRT.”
Still, for Robinson, determining which patients are best suited for surgery or SBRT remains unclear.
“Retrospective comparisons are fraught with problems because of confounding,” Robinson told this news organization. “That is, the healthier patients get surgery, and the less healthy ones get SBRT. No manner of fancy statistical manipulation can remove that fact.”
In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that the most significant variable predicting whether surgery or SBRT was superior in retrospective studies was whether the author was a surgeon or radiation oncologist.
Robinson noted that multiple randomized trials have attempted to randomize patients with medically operable early-stage NSCLC to surgery or SBRT and failed to accrue, largely due to patients’ “understandable unwillingness to be randomized between operative vs nonoperative interventions when most already prefer one or the other approach.”
Flores highlighted another point of caution about interpreting trial results: Not all early-stage NSCLC behaves similarly. “Some are slow-growing ‘turtles,’ and others are aggressive ‘rabbits’ — and the turtles are usually the ones that have been included in these radiotherapy trials, and that’s the danger,” he said.
While medical operability is the primary factor for deciding the treatment modality for early-stage NSCLC, there are other more subtle factors that can play into the decision.
These include prior surgery or radiotherapy to the chest, prior cancers, and social issues, such as the patient being a primary caregiver for another person and job insecurity, that might make recovery from surgery more challenging. And in rare instances, a patient may be medically fit to undergo surgery, but the cancer is technically challenging to resect due to anatomic issues or prior surgery to the chest, Robinson added.
A Winner?
Results from two ongoing, highly anticipated randomized trials expected in the next several years will hopefully provide additional insights and clarify ongoing uncertainties about the optimal treatment strategies for operable patients with stage I NSCLC.
STABLE-MATES is comparing outcomes after sublobar resection and SBRT in high-risk operable stage I NSCLC, and VALOR is evaluating outcomes after anatomic pulmonary resections and SBRT in patients with stage I NSCLC who have a long life expectancy and are fit enough to tolerate surgery.
But Robinson said his group believes that trying to decide on a winner is a “fool’s errand” and is instead running a pragmatic study across multiple academic and community centers around the United States and Canada where patients choose therapy based on their personal preferences and guidance from their physicians. The researchers will carefully track baseline comorbidity and frailty and assess serial quality-of-life changes over time.
“The goal is to create a calculator that a given patient might use in the future to determine what patients like them would have received, complete with expected outcomes and side effects,” Robinson said.
Robinson cautioned, however, that it “seems unlikely, given the existing literature, that one of the treatments will be truly ‘superior’ to the other one and lead to the ‘losing’ treatment fading away since both are excellent options with pros and cons.”
Aggarwal, Robinson, and Flores had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For years, the default definitive treatment for patients with early-stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been surgical resection, typically minimally invasive lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection.
Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the European Society for Medical Oncology all list surgery (in particular, lobectomy) as the primary local therapy for fit, operable patients with stage I NSCLC.
More recently, however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), also called stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, has emerged as a definitive treatment option for stage I NSCLC, especially for older, less fit patients who are unsuitable or deemed high-risk for surgery.
“We see patients in our practice who cannot undergo surgery or who may not have adequate lung function to be able to tolerate surgery, and for these patients who are medically inoperable or surgically unresectable, radiation therapy may be a reasonable option,” Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, professor and lung cancer specialist, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.
Given some encouraging data suggesting that SBRT could provide similar survival outcomes and be an alternative to surgery for operable disease, SBRT is also increasingly being considered in these early-stage patients. However, other evidence indicates that SBRT may be associated with higher rates of regional and distant recurrences and worse long-term survival, particularly in operable patients.
What may ultimately matter most is carefully selecting operable patients who undergo SBRT.
Aggarwal has encountered certain patients who are fit for surgery but would rather have radiation therapy. “This is an individual decision, and these patients are usually discussed at tumor board and in multidisciplinary discussions to really make sure that they’re making the right decision for themselves,” she explained.
The Pros and Cons of SBRT
SBRT is a nonsurgical approach in which precision high-dose radiation is delivered in just a few fractions — typically, 3, 5, or 8, depending on institutional protocols and tumor characteristics.
SBRT is performed on an outpatient basis, usually over 1-2 weeks, with most patients able to resume usual activities with minimal to no delay. Surgery, on the other hand, requires a hospital stay and takes most people about 2-6 weeks to return to regular activities. SBRT also avoids anesthesia and surgical incisions, both of which come with risks.
The data on SBRT in early-stage NSCLC are mixed. While some studies indicate that SBRT comes with promising survival outcomes, other research has reported worse survival and recurrence rates.
One potential reason for higher recurrence rates with SBRT is the lack of pathologic nodal staging, which only happens after surgery, as well as lower rates of nodal evaluation with endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy before surgery or SBRT. Without nodal assessments, clinicians may miss a more aggressive histology or more advanced nodal stage, which would go undertreated if patients received SBRT.
Latest Data in Large Cohort
A recent study published in Lung Cancer indicated that, when carefully selected, operable patients with early NSCLC have comparable survival with lobectomy or SBRT.
In the study, Dutch researchers took an in-depth look at survival and recurrence patterns in a retrospective cohort study of 2183 patients with clinical stage I NSCLC treated with minimally invasive lobectomy or SBRT. The study includes one of the largest cohorts to date, with robust data collection on baseline characteristics, comorbidities, tumor size, performance status, and follow-up.
Patients receiving SBRT were typically older (median age, 74 vs 67 years), had higher comorbidity burdens (Charlson index ≥ 5 in 57% of SBRT patients vs 23% of surgical patients), worse performance status, and lower lung function. To adjust for these differences, the researchers used propensity score weighting so the SBRT group’s baseline characteristics were comparable with those in the surgery group.
The surgery cohort had more invasive nodal evaluation: 21% underwent endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy vs only 12% in the SBRT group. The vast majority in both groups had PET-CT staging, reflecting modern imaging-based workups.
While 5-year local recurrence rates between the two groups were similar (13.1% for SBRT vs 12.1% for surgery), the 5-year regional recurrence rate was significantly higher after SBRT than lobectomy (18.1% vs 14.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), as was the distant metastasis rate (26.2% vs 20.2%; HR, 0.72).
Mortality at 30 days was higher after surgery than SBRT (1.0% vs 0.2%). And in the unadjusted analysis, 5-year overall survival was significantly better with lobectomy than SBRT (70.2% vs 40.3%).
However, when the analysis only included patients with similar baseline characteristics, overall survival was no longer significantly different in the two groups (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.20). Lung cancer–specific mortality was also not significantly different between the two treatments (HR, 1.08), but the study was underpowered to detect significant differences in this outcome on the basis of a relatively low number of deaths from NSCLC.
Still, even after comparing similar patients, recurrence-free survival was notably better with surgery (HR, 0.70), due to fewer regional recurrences and distant metastases. Overall, 13% of the surgical cohort had nodal upstaging at pathology, meaning that even in clinically “node-negative” stage I disease, a subset of patients had unsuspected nodal involvement.
Patients receiving SBRT did not have pathologic nodal staging, raising the possibility of occult micrometastases. The authors noted that the proportion of SBRT patients with occult lymph node metastases is likely at least equal to that in the surgery group, but these metastases would go undetected without pathologic assessment.
Missing potential occult micrometastases in the SBRT group likely contributed to higher regional recurrence rates over time. By improving nodal staging, more patients with occult lymph node metastases who would be undertreated with SBRT may be identified before treatment, the authors said.
What Do Experts Say?
So, is SBRT an option for patients with stage I NSCLC?
Opinions vary.
“If you got one shot for a cure, then you want to do the surgery because that’s what results in a cure,” said Raja Flores, MD, chairman of Thoracic Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.
Flores noted that the survival rate with surgery is high in this population. “There’s really nothing out there that can compare,” he said.
In his view, surgery “remains the gold standard.” However, “radiation could be considered in nonsurgical candidates,” he said.
The most recent NCCN guidelines align with Flores’ take. The guidelines say that SBRT is indicated for stage IA-IIA (N0) NSCLC in patients who are deemed “medically inoperable, high surgical risk as determined by thoracic surgeon, and those who decline surgery after thoracic surgical consultation.”
Clifford G. Robinson, MD, agreed. “In the United States, we largely treat patients with SBRT who are medically inoperable or high-risk operable and a much smaller proportion who decline surgery,” said Robinson, professor of radiation oncology and chief of SBRT at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis. “Many patients who are deemed operable are not offered SBRT.”
Still, for Robinson, determining which patients are best suited for surgery or SBRT remains unclear.
“Retrospective comparisons are fraught with problems because of confounding,” Robinson told this news organization. “That is, the healthier patients get surgery, and the less healthy ones get SBRT. No manner of fancy statistical manipulation can remove that fact.”
In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that the most significant variable predicting whether surgery or SBRT was superior in retrospective studies was whether the author was a surgeon or radiation oncologist.
Robinson noted that multiple randomized trials have attempted to randomize patients with medically operable early-stage NSCLC to surgery or SBRT and failed to accrue, largely due to patients’ “understandable unwillingness to be randomized between operative vs nonoperative interventions when most already prefer one or the other approach.”
Flores highlighted another point of caution about interpreting trial results: Not all early-stage NSCLC behaves similarly. “Some are slow-growing ‘turtles,’ and others are aggressive ‘rabbits’ — and the turtles are usually the ones that have been included in these radiotherapy trials, and that’s the danger,” he said.
While medical operability is the primary factor for deciding the treatment modality for early-stage NSCLC, there are other more subtle factors that can play into the decision.
These include prior surgery or radiotherapy to the chest, prior cancers, and social issues, such as the patient being a primary caregiver for another person and job insecurity, that might make recovery from surgery more challenging. And in rare instances, a patient may be medically fit to undergo surgery, but the cancer is technically challenging to resect due to anatomic issues or prior surgery to the chest, Robinson added.
A Winner?
Results from two ongoing, highly anticipated randomized trials expected in the next several years will hopefully provide additional insights and clarify ongoing uncertainties about the optimal treatment strategies for operable patients with stage I NSCLC.
STABLE-MATES is comparing outcomes after sublobar resection and SBRT in high-risk operable stage I NSCLC, and VALOR is evaluating outcomes after anatomic pulmonary resections and SBRT in patients with stage I NSCLC who have a long life expectancy and are fit enough to tolerate surgery.
But Robinson said his group believes that trying to decide on a winner is a “fool’s errand” and is instead running a pragmatic study across multiple academic and community centers around the United States and Canada where patients choose therapy based on their personal preferences and guidance from their physicians. The researchers will carefully track baseline comorbidity and frailty and assess serial quality-of-life changes over time.
“The goal is to create a calculator that a given patient might use in the future to determine what patients like them would have received, complete with expected outcomes and side effects,” Robinson said.
Robinson cautioned, however, that it “seems unlikely, given the existing literature, that one of the treatments will be truly ‘superior’ to the other one and lead to the ‘losing’ treatment fading away since both are excellent options with pros and cons.”
Aggarwal, Robinson, and Flores had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For years, the default definitive treatment for patients with early-stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been surgical resection, typically minimally invasive lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection.
Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the European Society for Medical Oncology all list surgery (in particular, lobectomy) as the primary local therapy for fit, operable patients with stage I NSCLC.
More recently, however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), also called stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, has emerged as a definitive treatment option for stage I NSCLC, especially for older, less fit patients who are unsuitable or deemed high-risk for surgery.
“We see patients in our practice who cannot undergo surgery or who may not have adequate lung function to be able to tolerate surgery, and for these patients who are medically inoperable or surgically unresectable, radiation therapy may be a reasonable option,” Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, professor and lung cancer specialist, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.
Given some encouraging data suggesting that SBRT could provide similar survival outcomes and be an alternative to surgery for operable disease, SBRT is also increasingly being considered in these early-stage patients. However, other evidence indicates that SBRT may be associated with higher rates of regional and distant recurrences and worse long-term survival, particularly in operable patients.
What may ultimately matter most is carefully selecting operable patients who undergo SBRT.
Aggarwal has encountered certain patients who are fit for surgery but would rather have radiation therapy. “This is an individual decision, and these patients are usually discussed at tumor board and in multidisciplinary discussions to really make sure that they’re making the right decision for themselves,” she explained.
The Pros and Cons of SBRT
SBRT is a nonsurgical approach in which precision high-dose radiation is delivered in just a few fractions — typically, 3, 5, or 8, depending on institutional protocols and tumor characteristics.
SBRT is performed on an outpatient basis, usually over 1-2 weeks, with most patients able to resume usual activities with minimal to no delay. Surgery, on the other hand, requires a hospital stay and takes most people about 2-6 weeks to return to regular activities. SBRT also avoids anesthesia and surgical incisions, both of which come with risks.
The data on SBRT in early-stage NSCLC are mixed. While some studies indicate that SBRT comes with promising survival outcomes, other research has reported worse survival and recurrence rates.
One potential reason for higher recurrence rates with SBRT is the lack of pathologic nodal staging, which only happens after surgery, as well as lower rates of nodal evaluation with endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy before surgery or SBRT. Without nodal assessments, clinicians may miss a more aggressive histology or more advanced nodal stage, which would go undertreated if patients received SBRT.
Latest Data in Large Cohort
A recent study published in Lung Cancer indicated that, when carefully selected, operable patients with early NSCLC have comparable survival with lobectomy or SBRT.
In the study, Dutch researchers took an in-depth look at survival and recurrence patterns in a retrospective cohort study of 2183 patients with clinical stage I NSCLC treated with minimally invasive lobectomy or SBRT. The study includes one of the largest cohorts to date, with robust data collection on baseline characteristics, comorbidities, tumor size, performance status, and follow-up.
Patients receiving SBRT were typically older (median age, 74 vs 67 years), had higher comorbidity burdens (Charlson index ≥ 5 in 57% of SBRT patients vs 23% of surgical patients), worse performance status, and lower lung function. To adjust for these differences, the researchers used propensity score weighting so the SBRT group’s baseline characteristics were comparable with those in the surgery group.
The surgery cohort had more invasive nodal evaluation: 21% underwent endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy vs only 12% in the SBRT group. The vast majority in both groups had PET-CT staging, reflecting modern imaging-based workups.
While 5-year local recurrence rates between the two groups were similar (13.1% for SBRT vs 12.1% for surgery), the 5-year regional recurrence rate was significantly higher after SBRT than lobectomy (18.1% vs 14.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), as was the distant metastasis rate (26.2% vs 20.2%; HR, 0.72).
Mortality at 30 days was higher after surgery than SBRT (1.0% vs 0.2%). And in the unadjusted analysis, 5-year overall survival was significantly better with lobectomy than SBRT (70.2% vs 40.3%).
However, when the analysis only included patients with similar baseline characteristics, overall survival was no longer significantly different in the two groups (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.20). Lung cancer–specific mortality was also not significantly different between the two treatments (HR, 1.08), but the study was underpowered to detect significant differences in this outcome on the basis of a relatively low number of deaths from NSCLC.
Still, even after comparing similar patients, recurrence-free survival was notably better with surgery (HR, 0.70), due to fewer regional recurrences and distant metastases. Overall, 13% of the surgical cohort had nodal upstaging at pathology, meaning that even in clinically “node-negative” stage I disease, a subset of patients had unsuspected nodal involvement.
Patients receiving SBRT did not have pathologic nodal staging, raising the possibility of occult micrometastases. The authors noted that the proportion of SBRT patients with occult lymph node metastases is likely at least equal to that in the surgery group, but these metastases would go undetected without pathologic assessment.
Missing potential occult micrometastases in the SBRT group likely contributed to higher regional recurrence rates over time. By improving nodal staging, more patients with occult lymph node metastases who would be undertreated with SBRT may be identified before treatment, the authors said.
What Do Experts Say?
So, is SBRT an option for patients with stage I NSCLC?
Opinions vary.
“If you got one shot for a cure, then you want to do the surgery because that’s what results in a cure,” said Raja Flores, MD, chairman of Thoracic Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.
Flores noted that the survival rate with surgery is high in this population. “There’s really nothing out there that can compare,” he said.
In his view, surgery “remains the gold standard.” However, “radiation could be considered in nonsurgical candidates,” he said.
The most recent NCCN guidelines align with Flores’ take. The guidelines say that SBRT is indicated for stage IA-IIA (N0) NSCLC in patients who are deemed “medically inoperable, high surgical risk as determined by thoracic surgeon, and those who decline surgery after thoracic surgical consultation.”
Clifford G. Robinson, MD, agreed. “In the United States, we largely treat patients with SBRT who are medically inoperable or high-risk operable and a much smaller proportion who decline surgery,” said Robinson, professor of radiation oncology and chief of SBRT at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis. “Many patients who are deemed operable are not offered SBRT.”
Still, for Robinson, determining which patients are best suited for surgery or SBRT remains unclear.
“Retrospective comparisons are fraught with problems because of confounding,” Robinson told this news organization. “That is, the healthier patients get surgery, and the less healthy ones get SBRT. No manner of fancy statistical manipulation can remove that fact.”
In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that the most significant variable predicting whether surgery or SBRT was superior in retrospective studies was whether the author was a surgeon or radiation oncologist.
Robinson noted that multiple randomized trials have attempted to randomize patients with medically operable early-stage NSCLC to surgery or SBRT and failed to accrue, largely due to patients’ “understandable unwillingness to be randomized between operative vs nonoperative interventions when most already prefer one or the other approach.”
Flores highlighted another point of caution about interpreting trial results: Not all early-stage NSCLC behaves similarly. “Some are slow-growing ‘turtles,’ and others are aggressive ‘rabbits’ — and the turtles are usually the ones that have been included in these radiotherapy trials, and that’s the danger,” he said.
While medical operability is the primary factor for deciding the treatment modality for early-stage NSCLC, there are other more subtle factors that can play into the decision.
These include prior surgery or radiotherapy to the chest, prior cancers, and social issues, such as the patient being a primary caregiver for another person and job insecurity, that might make recovery from surgery more challenging. And in rare instances, a patient may be medically fit to undergo surgery, but the cancer is technically challenging to resect due to anatomic issues or prior surgery to the chest, Robinson added.
A Winner?
Results from two ongoing, highly anticipated randomized trials expected in the next several years will hopefully provide additional insights and clarify ongoing uncertainties about the optimal treatment strategies for operable patients with stage I NSCLC.
STABLE-MATES is comparing outcomes after sublobar resection and SBRT in high-risk operable stage I NSCLC, and VALOR is evaluating outcomes after anatomic pulmonary resections and SBRT in patients with stage I NSCLC who have a long life expectancy and are fit enough to tolerate surgery.
But Robinson said his group believes that trying to decide on a winner is a “fool’s errand” and is instead running a pragmatic study across multiple academic and community centers around the United States and Canada where patients choose therapy based on their personal preferences and guidance from their physicians. The researchers will carefully track baseline comorbidity and frailty and assess serial quality-of-life changes over time.
“The goal is to create a calculator that a given patient might use in the future to determine what patients like them would have received, complete with expected outcomes and side effects,” Robinson said.
Robinson cautioned, however, that it “seems unlikely, given the existing literature, that one of the treatments will be truly ‘superior’ to the other one and lead to the ‘losing’ treatment fading away since both are excellent options with pros and cons.”
Aggarwal, Robinson, and Flores had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs Guselkumab for Crohn’s Disease
The approval marks the fourth indication for guselkumab, which was approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2017, active psoriatic arthritis in 2020, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in 2024.
Guselkumab is the first and only interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor that offers both subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) induction options for CD, the company said in a news release.
“Despite the progress in the management of Crohn’s disease, many patients experience debilitating symptoms and are in need of new treatment options,” Remo Panaccione, MD, director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said in the release.
“The approval of Tremfya offers an IL-23 inhibitor that has shown robust rates of endoscopic remission with both subcutaneous and intravenous induction regimens. Importantly, the fully subcutaneous regimen offers choice and flexibility for patients and providers not available before,” said Panaccione.
The FDA nod in CD was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials evaluating guselkumab in more than 1300 patients with moderately to severely active CD who failed or were intolerant to corticosteroids, immunomodulators, or biologics.
The GRAVITI trial showed that guselkumab as SC induction and maintenance therapy was superior to placebo in clinical remission as well as endoscopic response and remission and deep remission.
Results from GALAXI 2 and GALAXI 3 showed that guselkumab was superior to ustekinumab (Stelara) on all pooled endoscopic endpoints.
Guselkumab is the only IL-23 inhibitor to demonstrate “clinical remission and endoscopic response, both at 1 year, with a fully subcutaneous induction regimen,” the company said.
The recommended SC induction dose of guselkumab is 400 mg (given as two consecutive injections of 200 mg each, dispensed in one induction pack) at weeks 0, 4 and 8. The drug is also available in a 200 mg prefilled syringe. For the IV induction option, 200 mg IV infusions are administered at weeks 0, 4, and 8.
The recommended maintenance dosage is 100 mg administered by SC injection at week 16, and every 8 weeks thereafter, or 200 mg administered by SC injection at week 12, and every 4 weeks thereafter.
Use of the lowest effective recommended dosage to maintain therapeutic response is recommended.
Full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval marks the fourth indication for guselkumab, which was approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2017, active psoriatic arthritis in 2020, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in 2024.
Guselkumab is the first and only interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor that offers both subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) induction options for CD, the company said in a news release.
“Despite the progress in the management of Crohn’s disease, many patients experience debilitating symptoms and are in need of new treatment options,” Remo Panaccione, MD, director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said in the release.
“The approval of Tremfya offers an IL-23 inhibitor that has shown robust rates of endoscopic remission with both subcutaneous and intravenous induction regimens. Importantly, the fully subcutaneous regimen offers choice and flexibility for patients and providers not available before,” said Panaccione.
The FDA nod in CD was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials evaluating guselkumab in more than 1300 patients with moderately to severely active CD who failed or were intolerant to corticosteroids, immunomodulators, or biologics.
The GRAVITI trial showed that guselkumab as SC induction and maintenance therapy was superior to placebo in clinical remission as well as endoscopic response and remission and deep remission.
Results from GALAXI 2 and GALAXI 3 showed that guselkumab was superior to ustekinumab (Stelara) on all pooled endoscopic endpoints.
Guselkumab is the only IL-23 inhibitor to demonstrate “clinical remission and endoscopic response, both at 1 year, with a fully subcutaneous induction regimen,” the company said.
The recommended SC induction dose of guselkumab is 400 mg (given as two consecutive injections of 200 mg each, dispensed in one induction pack) at weeks 0, 4 and 8. The drug is also available in a 200 mg prefilled syringe. For the IV induction option, 200 mg IV infusions are administered at weeks 0, 4, and 8.
The recommended maintenance dosage is 100 mg administered by SC injection at week 16, and every 8 weeks thereafter, or 200 mg administered by SC injection at week 12, and every 4 weeks thereafter.
Use of the lowest effective recommended dosage to maintain therapeutic response is recommended.
Full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval marks the fourth indication for guselkumab, which was approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2017, active psoriatic arthritis in 2020, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in 2024.
Guselkumab is the first and only interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor that offers both subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) induction options for CD, the company said in a news release.
“Despite the progress in the management of Crohn’s disease, many patients experience debilitating symptoms and are in need of new treatment options,” Remo Panaccione, MD, director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said in the release.
“The approval of Tremfya offers an IL-23 inhibitor that has shown robust rates of endoscopic remission with both subcutaneous and intravenous induction regimens. Importantly, the fully subcutaneous regimen offers choice and flexibility for patients and providers not available before,” said Panaccione.
The FDA nod in CD was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials evaluating guselkumab in more than 1300 patients with moderately to severely active CD who failed or were intolerant to corticosteroids, immunomodulators, or biologics.
The GRAVITI trial showed that guselkumab as SC induction and maintenance therapy was superior to placebo in clinical remission as well as endoscopic response and remission and deep remission.
Results from GALAXI 2 and GALAXI 3 showed that guselkumab was superior to ustekinumab (Stelara) on all pooled endoscopic endpoints.
Guselkumab is the only IL-23 inhibitor to demonstrate “clinical remission and endoscopic response, both at 1 year, with a fully subcutaneous induction regimen,” the company said.
The recommended SC induction dose of guselkumab is 400 mg (given as two consecutive injections of 200 mg each, dispensed in one induction pack) at weeks 0, 4 and 8. The drug is also available in a 200 mg prefilled syringe. For the IV induction option, 200 mg IV infusions are administered at weeks 0, 4, and 8.
The recommended maintenance dosage is 100 mg administered by SC injection at week 16, and every 8 weeks thereafter, or 200 mg administered by SC injection at week 12, and every 4 weeks thereafter.
Use of the lowest effective recommended dosage to maintain therapeutic response is recommended.
Full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.