Sharon Worcester, MA

Alectinib, a potent anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) at 2 years, compared with chemotherapy, in patients with completely resected ALK+ non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from the open-label phase 3 ALINA trial.

The results suggest that alectinib, which is currently the first-line treatment choice in more advanced NSCLC, also provides an effective new treatment strategy for patients with resected ALK+ NSCLC, said Ben Solomon, MBBS, PhD, who presented late-breaking data from the trial at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

ALINA is the first phase 3 trial of an ALK inhibitor to show a DFS benefit in completely resected stage IB-IIIA disease, said Dr. Solomon, professor and medical oncologist at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne.

The current treatment recommendation for after surgery in this patient population is platinum-based chemotherapy, which is associated with modest improvements in overall survival. But multiple trials looking at alectinib in stage I-III NSCLC are underway given the unmet need for treatment in the 4%-5% of NSCLC patients with ALK rearrangements, Dr. Solomon explained.

The ALINA trial enrolled adults with good performance status and completely resected stage IB-IIIA ALK+ NSCLC. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 600 mg of oral alectinib twice daily for up to 24 months or until disease recurrence, or up to four 21-day cycles of intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy.

At median follow-up of 27.8 months, Dr. Solomon and colleagues observed an overall DFS benefit in 130 patients with stage II-IIIA disease randomized to receive alectinib, compared with the 127 patients who received chemotherapy (median DFS not reached vs. 44.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.24). The benefit was observed in the overall intention-to-treat (ITT) population of patients with stage IB-IIIA disease (median DFS not reached vs. 41.3 months; HR, 0.24).

Two-year DFS was also improved with alectinib vs. chemotherapy for stage IB (HR, 0.21), stage II (HR, 0.24), and stage IIIA disease (HR, 0.25).

The investigators observed a clinically meaningful central nervous system DFS benefit in the ITT population as well (HR, 0.22). This finding is important, given that patients with ALK+ disease have a high risk of brain metastases, which occurs in 50%-60% of patients over the course of disease, Dr. Solomon noted.

Over the treatment duration in each arm, 23.4% of patients in the alectinib arm and 25.8% in the chemotherapy arm experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events; 5 patients in the alectinib arm and 13 in the chemotherapy arm had adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation.

“Adjuvant alectinib was tolerable and in line with the known safety profile of alectinib,” Dr. Solomon concluded, but noted that the overall survival data were not yet mature.

Invited discussant Marina Garassino, MBBS, however, cautioned against rushing to judgment, calling the DFS findings “interesting, but early.”

“Are 2 years of alectinib enough to impact overall survival? We don’t know yet,” said Dr. Garassino, professor of medicine and director of the thoracic oncology program at the University of Chicago.

Chemotherapy, conversely, has been shown to improve overall survival, she noted.

Toxicity of alectinib in the adjuvant setting may be a concern as well, she said, explaining that patients have reported numerous side effects that can affect quality of life, such as sun sensitivity, difficulty focusing, neuropathy, lower back muscle soreness, and constipation.

“So, I think we should still wait for more results from this trial,” she said.

In the meantime, she said she will ask patients “if they want this kind of toxicity in the absence of a clear overall survival benefit.”

The ALINA trial is funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Solomon and Dr. Garassino each reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other entities.

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

Alectinib, a potent anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) at 2 years, compared with chemotherapy, in patients with completely resected ALK+ non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from the open-label phase 3 ALINA trial.

The results suggest that alectinib, which is currently the first-line treatment choice in more advanced NSCLC, also provides an effective new treatment strategy for patients with resected ALK+ NSCLC, said Ben Solomon, MBBS, PhD, who presented late-breaking data from the trial at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

ALINA is the first phase 3 trial of an ALK inhibitor to show a DFS benefit in completely resected stage IB-IIIA disease, said Dr. Solomon, professor and medical oncologist at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne.

The current treatment recommendation for after surgery in this patient population is platinum-based chemotherapy, which is associated with modest improvements in overall survival. But multiple trials looking at alectinib in stage I-III NSCLC are underway given the unmet need for treatment in the 4%-5% of NSCLC patients with ALK rearrangements, Dr. Solomon explained.

The ALINA trial enrolled adults with good performance status and completely resected stage IB-IIIA ALK+ NSCLC. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 600 mg of oral alectinib twice daily for up to 24 months or until disease recurrence, or up to four 21-day cycles of intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy.

At median follow-up of 27.8 months, Dr. Solomon and colleagues observed an overall DFS benefit in 130 patients with stage II-IIIA disease randomized to receive alectinib, compared with the 127 patients who received chemotherapy (median DFS not reached vs. 44.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.24). The benefit was observed in the overall intention-to-treat (ITT) population of patients with stage IB-IIIA disease (median DFS not reached vs. 41.3 months; HR, 0.24).

Two-year DFS was also improved with alectinib vs. chemotherapy for stage IB (HR, 0.21), stage II (HR, 0.24), and stage IIIA disease (HR, 0.25).

The investigators observed a clinically meaningful central nervous system DFS benefit in the ITT population as well (HR, 0.22). This finding is important, given that patients with ALK+ disease have a high risk of brain metastases, which occurs in 50%-60% of patients over the course of disease, Dr. Solomon noted.

Over the treatment duration in each arm, 23.4% of patients in the alectinib arm and 25.8% in the chemotherapy arm experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events; 5 patients in the alectinib arm and 13 in the chemotherapy arm had adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation.

“Adjuvant alectinib was tolerable and in line with the known safety profile of alectinib,” Dr. Solomon concluded, but noted that the overall survival data were not yet mature.

Invited discussant Marina Garassino, MBBS, however, cautioned against rushing to judgment, calling the DFS findings “interesting, but early.”

“Are 2 years of alectinib enough to impact overall survival? We don’t know yet,” said Dr. Garassino, professor of medicine and director of the thoracic oncology program at the University of Chicago.

Chemotherapy, conversely, has been shown to improve overall survival, she noted.

Toxicity of alectinib in the adjuvant setting may be a concern as well, she said, explaining that patients have reported numerous side effects that can affect quality of life, such as sun sensitivity, difficulty focusing, neuropathy, lower back muscle soreness, and constipation.

“So, I think we should still wait for more results from this trial,” she said.

In the meantime, she said she will ask patients “if they want this kind of toxicity in the absence of a clear overall survival benefit.”

The ALINA trial is funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Solomon and Dr. Garassino each reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other entities.

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

Alectinib, a potent anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) at 2 years, compared with chemotherapy, in patients with completely resected ALK+ non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from the open-label phase 3 ALINA trial.

The results suggest that alectinib, which is currently the first-line treatment choice in more advanced NSCLC, also provides an effective new treatment strategy for patients with resected ALK+ NSCLC, said Ben Solomon, MBBS, PhD, who presented late-breaking data from the trial at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

ALINA is the first phase 3 trial of an ALK inhibitor to show a DFS benefit in completely resected stage IB-IIIA disease, said Dr. Solomon, professor and medical oncologist at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne.

The current treatment recommendation for after surgery in this patient population is platinum-based chemotherapy, which is associated with modest improvements in overall survival. But multiple trials looking at alectinib in stage I-III NSCLC are underway given the unmet need for treatment in the 4%-5% of NSCLC patients with ALK rearrangements, Dr. Solomon explained.

The ALINA trial enrolled adults with good performance status and completely resected stage IB-IIIA ALK+ NSCLC. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 600 mg of oral alectinib twice daily for up to 24 months or until disease recurrence, or up to four 21-day cycles of intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy.

At median follow-up of 27.8 months, Dr. Solomon and colleagues observed an overall DFS benefit in 130 patients with stage II-IIIA disease randomized to receive alectinib, compared with the 127 patients who received chemotherapy (median DFS not reached vs. 44.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.24). The benefit was observed in the overall intention-to-treat (ITT) population of patients with stage IB-IIIA disease (median DFS not reached vs. 41.3 months; HR, 0.24).

Two-year DFS was also improved with alectinib vs. chemotherapy for stage IB (HR, 0.21), stage II (HR, 0.24), and stage IIIA disease (HR, 0.25).

The investigators observed a clinically meaningful central nervous system DFS benefit in the ITT population as well (HR, 0.22). This finding is important, given that patients with ALK+ disease have a high risk of brain metastases, which occurs in 50%-60% of patients over the course of disease, Dr. Solomon noted.

Over the treatment duration in each arm, 23.4% of patients in the alectinib arm and 25.8% in the chemotherapy arm experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events; 5 patients in the alectinib arm and 13 in the chemotherapy arm had adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation.

“Adjuvant alectinib was tolerable and in line with the known safety profile of alectinib,” Dr. Solomon concluded, but noted that the overall survival data were not yet mature.

Invited discussant Marina Garassino, MBBS, however, cautioned against rushing to judgment, calling the DFS findings “interesting, but early.”

“Are 2 years of alectinib enough to impact overall survival? We don’t know yet,” said Dr. Garassino, professor of medicine and director of the thoracic oncology program at the University of Chicago.

Chemotherapy, conversely, has been shown to improve overall survival, she noted.

Toxicity of alectinib in the adjuvant setting may be a concern as well, she said, explaining that patients have reported numerous side effects that can affect quality of life, such as sun sensitivity, difficulty focusing, neuropathy, lower back muscle soreness, and constipation.

“So, I think we should still wait for more results from this trial,” she said.

In the meantime, she said she will ask patients “if they want this kind of toxicity in the absence of a clear overall survival benefit.”

The ALINA trial is funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Solomon and Dr. Garassino each reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other entities.

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

Neoadjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant nivolumab led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (EFS) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from the phase 3 CheckMate 77T trial.

In the interim analysis, median EFS was not reached in 229 patients randomly assigned to the adjuvant nivolumab treatment group vs. 18.4 months in 232 patients randomly assigned to a placebo group over a minimum follow-up of 15.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.58), first author Tina Cascone, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“CheckMate 77T is the first phase 3 perioperative study to build on the standard of care neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy and supports perioperative nivolumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Cascone, associate professor in the division of cancer medicine at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Invited discussant Marina Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine and director of the thoracic oncology program at the University of Chicago, noted that the “practice-changing” CheckMate 77T findings – including the “highly statistically significant impressive hazard ratio of 0.58” – add to the increasing evidence supporting perioperative immunochemotherapy in the resectable NSCLC space.

This trial is the fourth to show an EFS benefit in this setting with a perioperative approach. Most recently, Merck’s pembrolizumab (Keytruda) demonstrated improvements in both EFS and overall survival when used in the perioperative setting for patients with resectable NSCLC, according to data from the pivotal KEYNOTE-671 trial. Those findings, also presented at the ESMO congress, led to the approval this past week of pembrolizumab in that population.

The CheckMate 77T included 461 adults with untreated resectable stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC, 77% of whom underwent definitive surgery. The median age of participants was 66 years. Patients were randomly assigned to active treatment with nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo. The neoadjuvant nivolumab dose was 360 mg every 3 weeks for four cycles, and the adjuvant dose was 480 mg every 4 weeks for 1 year.

Overall, adding adjuvant nivolumab led to a significant improvement in EFS over a follow-up spanning 15.7-44.2 months (not reached vs. 18.4 months; HR, 0.58; P = .00025).

The EFS benefits were observed across most key subgroups but was lower in patients with stage II vs. stage III disease (HR, 0.81 vs. 0.51), and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% vs. 1% or greater (HR, 0.73 vs. 0.52).

Neoadjuvant/adjuvant nivolumab also led to a significant improvement in pathological complete response (25.3% vs. 4.7%; odds ratio, 6.64) and major pathological response (35.4% vs. 12.1%; OR, 4.01) – the trial’s secondary endpoints.

In an exploratory analysis, perioperative nivolumab showed a trend toward improved EFS in patients without a pathological complete response, Dr. Cascone added.

No new safety signals were observed. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32% of patients in the treatment arm and 25% in the placebo arm. Surgery-related adverse events occurred in 12% in each arm.

Despite the promising findings, some questions remain, said Dr. Garassino.

First, should PD-L1–negative patients and those with stage II NSCLC receive perioperative treatment? Pooled data from recent perioperative trials indicated EFS benefits in the perioperative setting for both PD-L1-negative disease (HR, 0.72) and stage II disease (HR, 0.68), she said.

So, “the answer is yes, we should treat” these patients, she said.

But a big question is whether patients who don’t achieve a pathological complete response need adjuvant therapy. “We really don’t know,” she continued. “What we know is that those patients who achieve pathological complete response do very, very well, and I think for those patients who don’t achieve pathological complete response, we have to work with new biomarkers, [circulating tumor] DNA, new drugs, and we have to run proper trials to increase the power of these patients, that unfortunately is still very low.”

CheckMate 77T is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone and Dr. Garassino each reported relationships (personal and institutional) with numerous pharmaceutical companies and other entities.

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

Neoadjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant nivolumab led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (EFS) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from the phase 3 CheckMate 77T trial.

In the interim analysis, median EFS was not reached in 229 patients randomly assigned to the adjuvant nivolumab treatment group vs. 18.4 months in 232 patients randomly assigned to a placebo group over a minimum follow-up of 15.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.58), first author Tina Cascone, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“CheckMate 77T is the first phase 3 perioperative study to build on the standard of care neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy and supports perioperative nivolumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Cascone, associate professor in the division of cancer medicine at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Invited discussant Marina Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine and director of the thoracic oncology program at the University of Chicago, noted that the “practice-changing” CheckMate 77T findings – including the “highly statistically significant impressive hazard ratio of 0.58” – add to the increasing evidence supporting perioperative immunochemotherapy in the resectable NSCLC space.

This trial is the fourth to show an EFS benefit in this setting with a perioperative approach. Most recently, Merck’s pembrolizumab (Keytruda) demonstrated improvements in both EFS and overall survival when used in the perioperative setting for patients with resectable NSCLC, according to data from the pivotal KEYNOTE-671 trial. Those findings, also presented at the ESMO congress, led to the approval this past week of pembrolizumab in that population.

The CheckMate 77T included 461 adults with untreated resectable stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC, 77% of whom underwent definitive surgery. The median age of participants was 66 years. Patients were randomly assigned to active treatment with nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo. The neoadjuvant nivolumab dose was 360 mg every 3 weeks for four cycles, and the adjuvant dose was 480 mg every 4 weeks for 1 year.

Overall, adding adjuvant nivolumab led to a significant improvement in EFS over a follow-up spanning 15.7-44.2 months (not reached vs. 18.4 months; HR, 0.58; P = .00025).

The EFS benefits were observed across most key subgroups but was lower in patients with stage II vs. stage III disease (HR, 0.81 vs. 0.51), and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% vs. 1% or greater (HR, 0.73 vs. 0.52).

Neoadjuvant/adjuvant nivolumab also led to a significant improvement in pathological complete response (25.3% vs. 4.7%; odds ratio, 6.64) and major pathological response (35.4% vs. 12.1%; OR, 4.01) – the trial’s secondary endpoints.

In an exploratory analysis, perioperative nivolumab showed a trend toward improved EFS in patients without a pathological complete response, Dr. Cascone added.

No new safety signals were observed. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32% of patients in the treatment arm and 25% in the placebo arm. Surgery-related adverse events occurred in 12% in each arm.

Despite the promising findings, some questions remain, said Dr. Garassino.

First, should PD-L1–negative patients and those with stage II NSCLC receive perioperative treatment? Pooled data from recent perioperative trials indicated EFS benefits in the perioperative setting for both PD-L1-negative disease (HR, 0.72) and stage II disease (HR, 0.68), she said.

So, “the answer is yes, we should treat” these patients, she said.

But a big question is whether patients who don’t achieve a pathological complete response need adjuvant therapy. “We really don’t know,” she continued. “What we know is that those patients who achieve pathological complete response do very, very well, and I think for those patients who don’t achieve pathological complete response, we have to work with new biomarkers, [circulating tumor] DNA, new drugs, and we have to run proper trials to increase the power of these patients, that unfortunately is still very low.”

CheckMate 77T is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone and Dr. Garassino each reported relationships (personal and institutional) with numerous pharmaceutical companies and other entities.

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

Neoadjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant nivolumab led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (EFS) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from the phase 3 CheckMate 77T trial.

In the interim analysis, median EFS was not reached in 229 patients randomly assigned to the adjuvant nivolumab treatment group vs. 18.4 months in 232 patients randomly assigned to a placebo group over a minimum follow-up of 15.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.58), first author Tina Cascone, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“CheckMate 77T is the first phase 3 perioperative study to build on the standard of care neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy and supports perioperative nivolumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Cascone, associate professor in the division of cancer medicine at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Invited discussant Marina Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine and director of the thoracic oncology program at the University of Chicago, noted that the “practice-changing” CheckMate 77T findings – including the “highly statistically significant impressive hazard ratio of 0.58” – add to the increasing evidence supporting perioperative immunochemotherapy in the resectable NSCLC space.

This trial is the fourth to show an EFS benefit in this setting with a perioperative approach. Most recently, Merck’s pembrolizumab (Keytruda) demonstrated improvements in both EFS and overall survival when used in the perioperative setting for patients with resectable NSCLC, according to data from the pivotal KEYNOTE-671 trial. Those findings, also presented at the ESMO congress, led to the approval this past week of pembrolizumab in that population.

The CheckMate 77T included 461 adults with untreated resectable stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC, 77% of whom underwent definitive surgery. The median age of participants was 66 years. Patients were randomly assigned to active treatment with nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo. The neoadjuvant nivolumab dose was 360 mg every 3 weeks for four cycles, and the adjuvant dose was 480 mg every 4 weeks for 1 year.

Overall, adding adjuvant nivolumab led to a significant improvement in EFS over a follow-up spanning 15.7-44.2 months (not reached vs. 18.4 months; HR, 0.58; P = .00025).

The EFS benefits were observed across most key subgroups but was lower in patients with stage II vs. stage III disease (HR, 0.81 vs. 0.51), and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% vs. 1% or greater (HR, 0.73 vs. 0.52).

Neoadjuvant/adjuvant nivolumab also led to a significant improvement in pathological complete response (25.3% vs. 4.7%; odds ratio, 6.64) and major pathological response (35.4% vs. 12.1%; OR, 4.01) – the trial’s secondary endpoints.

In an exploratory analysis, perioperative nivolumab showed a trend toward improved EFS in patients without a pathological complete response, Dr. Cascone added.

No new safety signals were observed. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32% of patients in the treatment arm and 25% in the placebo arm. Surgery-related adverse events occurred in 12% in each arm.

Despite the promising findings, some questions remain, said Dr. Garassino.

First, should PD-L1–negative patients and those with stage II NSCLC receive perioperative treatment? Pooled data from recent perioperative trials indicated EFS benefits in the perioperative setting for both PD-L1-negative disease (HR, 0.72) and stage II disease (HR, 0.68), she said.

So, “the answer is yes, we should treat” these patients, she said.

But a big question is whether patients who don’t achieve a pathological complete response need adjuvant therapy. “We really don’t know,” she continued. “What we know is that those patients who achieve pathological complete response do very, very well, and I think for those patients who don’t achieve pathological complete response, we have to work with new biomarkers, [circulating tumor] DNA, new drugs, and we have to run proper trials to increase the power of these patients, that unfortunately is still very low.”

CheckMate 77T is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone and Dr. Garassino each reported relationships (personal and institutional) with numerous pharmaceutical companies and other entities.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of completely resected stage IIB/C melanoma for patients aged 12 years and older, expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.

The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.

Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.

The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of completely resected stage IIB/C melanoma for patients aged 12 years and older, expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.

The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.

Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.

The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of completely resected stage IIB/C melanoma for patients aged 12 years and older, expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.

The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.

Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.

The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel DNA test system that assesses a person’s genetic predisposition for certain cancers – the first of its kind granted marketing authorization by the Food and Drug Administration – may become a valuable new public health tool.

The Common Hereditary Cancers Panel (Invitae) was approved late September following FDA review under the De Novo process, a regulatory pathway for new types of low- to moderate-risk devices.

Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

Validation of the prescription-only in vitro test was based on assessments of more than 9,000 clinical samples, which demonstrated accuracy of at least 99% for all tested variants in 47 genes known to be associated with an increased risk of developing certain cancers, including breast, ovarian, uterine, prostate, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic as well as melanoma.
 

How the test system works

Next-generation sequencing assesses germline human genomic DNA extracted from a single blood sample collected at the point of care, such as a doctor’s office, and is sent to a laboratory for analysis.

Specifically, the system aims to detect substitutions, small insertion and deletion alterations, and copy number variants in the panel of 47 targeted genes.

This technology “can provide an important public health tool that offers individuals more information about their health, including possible predisposition for certain cancers,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological health, explained in an FDA press release announcing the marketing authorization.

Clinical interpretation is based on evidence from the published literature, prediction programs, public databases, and Invitae’s own variants database, the FDA statement explained.
 

What the test can do

Not only can the Common Hereditary Cancer Panel identify genetic variants that increase an individual’s risk of certain cancers, the panel can also help identify potential cancer-related hereditary variants in patients already diagnosed with cancer.

The most clinically significant genes the test system can detect include BRCA1 and BRCA2, which have known associations with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome; Lynch syndrome–associated genes including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM; CDH1, which is largely associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer; and STK11, which is associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome.

“Patients should speak with a health care professional, such as a genetic counselor, to discuss any personal/family history of cancer, as such information can be helpful in interpreting test results,” the FDA advised.
 

What the test can’t do

The test is not intended to identify or evaluate all known genes tied to a person’s potential predisposition for cancer. The test is also not intended for cancer screening or prenatal testing. 

For these reasons, and because genetics are not the only factor associated with developing cancer, negative test results could lead to misunderstanding among some patients about their cancer risk.

“Results are intended to be interpreted within the context of additional laboratory results, family history, and clinical findings,” the company wrote in a statement.
 

Test safety

Risks associated with the test include the possibility of false positive and false negative results and the potential for people to misunderstand what the results mean about their risk for cancer.

A false sense of assurance after a false negative result might, for instance, lead patients to forgo recommended surveillance or clinical management, whereas false positive test results could lead to inappropriate decision-making and undesirable consequences.

“These risks are mitigated by the analytical performance validation, clinical validation, and appropriate labeling of this test,” the agency explained.

Along with the De Novo authorization, the FDA is establishing special controls to define requirements for these tests. For instance, accuracy must be 99% or higher for positive agreement and at least 99.9% for negative agreement with a validated, independent method.
 

Public health implications

The information gleaned from this tool can “help guide physicians to provide appropriate monitoring and potential therapy, based on discovered variants,” Dr. Shuren said.

The marketing authorization of Invitae’s test established a new regulatory category, which “means that subsequent devices of the same type with the same intended use may go through FDA’s 510(k) premarket process,” the FDA explained.

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

A novel DNA test system that assesses a person’s genetic predisposition for certain cancers – the first of its kind granted marketing authorization by the Food and Drug Administration – may become a valuable new public health tool.

The Common Hereditary Cancers Panel (Invitae) was approved late September following FDA review under the De Novo process, a regulatory pathway for new types of low- to moderate-risk devices.

Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

Validation of the prescription-only in vitro test was based on assessments of more than 9,000 clinical samples, which demonstrated accuracy of at least 99% for all tested variants in 47 genes known to be associated with an increased risk of developing certain cancers, including breast, ovarian, uterine, prostate, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic as well as melanoma.
 

How the test system works

Next-generation sequencing assesses germline human genomic DNA extracted from a single blood sample collected at the point of care, such as a doctor’s office, and is sent to a laboratory for analysis.

Specifically, the system aims to detect substitutions, small insertion and deletion alterations, and copy number variants in the panel of 47 targeted genes.

This technology “can provide an important public health tool that offers individuals more information about their health, including possible predisposition for certain cancers,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological health, explained in an FDA press release announcing the marketing authorization.

Clinical interpretation is based on evidence from the published literature, prediction programs, public databases, and Invitae’s own variants database, the FDA statement explained.
 

What the test can do

Not only can the Common Hereditary Cancer Panel identify genetic variants that increase an individual’s risk of certain cancers, the panel can also help identify potential cancer-related hereditary variants in patients already diagnosed with cancer.

The most clinically significant genes the test system can detect include BRCA1 and BRCA2, which have known associations with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome; Lynch syndrome–associated genes including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM; CDH1, which is largely associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer; and STK11, which is associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome.

“Patients should speak with a health care professional, such as a genetic counselor, to discuss any personal/family history of cancer, as such information can be helpful in interpreting test results,” the FDA advised.
 

What the test can’t do

The test is not intended to identify or evaluate all known genes tied to a person’s potential predisposition for cancer. The test is also not intended for cancer screening or prenatal testing. 

For these reasons, and because genetics are not the only factor associated with developing cancer, negative test results could lead to misunderstanding among some patients about their cancer risk.

“Results are intended to be interpreted within the context of additional laboratory results, family history, and clinical findings,” the company wrote in a statement.
 

Test safety

Risks associated with the test include the possibility of false positive and false negative results and the potential for people to misunderstand what the results mean about their risk for cancer.

A false sense of assurance after a false negative result might, for instance, lead patients to forgo recommended surveillance or clinical management, whereas false positive test results could lead to inappropriate decision-making and undesirable consequences.

“These risks are mitigated by the analytical performance validation, clinical validation, and appropriate labeling of this test,” the agency explained.

Along with the De Novo authorization, the FDA is establishing special controls to define requirements for these tests. For instance, accuracy must be 99% or higher for positive agreement and at least 99.9% for negative agreement with a validated, independent method.
 

Public health implications

The information gleaned from this tool can “help guide physicians to provide appropriate monitoring and potential therapy, based on discovered variants,” Dr. Shuren said.

The marketing authorization of Invitae’s test established a new regulatory category, which “means that subsequent devices of the same type with the same intended use may go through FDA’s 510(k) premarket process,” the FDA explained.

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

A novel DNA test system that assesses a person’s genetic predisposition for certain cancers – the first of its kind granted marketing authorization by the Food and Drug Administration – may become a valuable new public health tool.

The Common Hereditary Cancers Panel (Invitae) was approved late September following FDA review under the De Novo process, a regulatory pathway for new types of low- to moderate-risk devices.

Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

Validation of the prescription-only in vitro test was based on assessments of more than 9,000 clinical samples, which demonstrated accuracy of at least 99% for all tested variants in 47 genes known to be associated with an increased risk of developing certain cancers, including breast, ovarian, uterine, prostate, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic as well as melanoma.
 

How the test system works

Next-generation sequencing assesses germline human genomic DNA extracted from a single blood sample collected at the point of care, such as a doctor’s office, and is sent to a laboratory for analysis.

Specifically, the system aims to detect substitutions, small insertion and deletion alterations, and copy number variants in the panel of 47 targeted genes.

This technology “can provide an important public health tool that offers individuals more information about their health, including possible predisposition for certain cancers,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological health, explained in an FDA press release announcing the marketing authorization.

Clinical interpretation is based on evidence from the published literature, prediction programs, public databases, and Invitae’s own variants database, the FDA statement explained.
 

What the test can do

Not only can the Common Hereditary Cancer Panel identify genetic variants that increase an individual’s risk of certain cancers, the panel can also help identify potential cancer-related hereditary variants in patients already diagnosed with cancer.

The most clinically significant genes the test system can detect include BRCA1 and BRCA2, which have known associations with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome; Lynch syndrome–associated genes including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM; CDH1, which is largely associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer; and STK11, which is associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome.

“Patients should speak with a health care professional, such as a genetic counselor, to discuss any personal/family history of cancer, as such information can be helpful in interpreting test results,” the FDA advised.
 

What the test can’t do

The test is not intended to identify or evaluate all known genes tied to a person’s potential predisposition for cancer. The test is also not intended for cancer screening or prenatal testing. 

For these reasons, and because genetics are not the only factor associated with developing cancer, negative test results could lead to misunderstanding among some patients about their cancer risk.

“Results are intended to be interpreted within the context of additional laboratory results, family history, and clinical findings,” the company wrote in a statement.
 

Test safety

Risks associated with the test include the possibility of false positive and false negative results and the potential for people to misunderstand what the results mean about their risk for cancer.

A false sense of assurance after a false negative result might, for instance, lead patients to forgo recommended surveillance or clinical management, whereas false positive test results could lead to inappropriate decision-making and undesirable consequences.

“These risks are mitigated by the analytical performance validation, clinical validation, and appropriate labeling of this test,” the agency explained.

Along with the De Novo authorization, the FDA is establishing special controls to define requirements for these tests. For instance, accuracy must be 99% or higher for positive agreement and at least 99.9% for negative agreement with a validated, independent method.
 

Public health implications

The information gleaned from this tool can “help guide physicians to provide appropriate monitoring and potential therapy, based on discovered variants,” Dr. Shuren said.

The marketing authorization of Invitae’s test established a new regulatory category, which “means that subsequent devices of the same type with the same intended use may go through FDA’s 510(k) premarket process,” the FDA explained.

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

Opposition to the current American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM’s) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) process continues to gain momentum, with the latest condemnation coming from the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

ASH president Robert A. Brodsky, MD, sent a letter to ABIM’s President and Chief Executive Officer Richard Baron, MD, highlighting hematologists’ concerns about the MOC process and outlining immediate actions ABIM should take.

“ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program,” Dr. Brodsky stated in the Sept. 27 letter to Baron.

Dr. Brodsky highlighted, for instance, the fact that the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment – the alternative to the 10-year exam – “does not reflect real life practice, nor does it target each individual’s scope of practice.” Dr. Brodsky added that, according to members of ASH, the assessment is also “creating high levels of stress and contributing to burnout.”

The letter from Dr. Brodsky urged ABIM to “establish a new MOC program” that does not involve high-stakes assessments, reduces the number of Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment questions physicians receive, and eliminates redundancy between the MOC requirement to have a current license and the requirement to report continued medical education to ABIM.

The ABIM shared a copy of the letter in a Sept. 28 blog post defending the MOC process, highlighting past collaboration with ASH that “has led to meaningful enhancements to the [MOC] program” and committing to “continue to listen to and learn from the physician community going forward.”

The recent backlash against the MOC process stemmed from a petition demanding an end to the MOC. The petition was launched in July by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, who has been a vocal critic of the MOC process.

The criticism largely centered around the high costs and the “complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” Dr. Goodman wrote in the petition, which has garnered more than 20,700 signatures.

In August, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) published “SCAI Position on ABIM Revocation of Certification for Not Participating in MOC.” The Electrophysiology Advocacy Foundation and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) issued statements pushing back on the MOC as well.

On Sept. 21, the SCAI, HRS, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America went a step further and announced plans to create a new certification process that is independent of the ABIM MOC system.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is now also surveying members about their MOC experience. A Sept. 26 announcement encouraged recipients to check their inboxes for a link to an anonymous MOC Experience Questionnaire before Oct. 12 and thanked respondents for their “engagement as ASCO works to address this critical issue for the oncology community.”

After ASH sent its letter to ABIM, Dr. Goodman applauded the society’s stance in a post on his X (formerly Twitter) account. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented on ABIM’s response to ASH’s letter via X, noting, “If I were @ASH_hematology leadership, I would take ABIM response as disrespectful. A hasty response within a day is not a sign of good faith.”

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

Opposition to the current American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM’s) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) process continues to gain momentum, with the latest condemnation coming from the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

ASH president Robert A. Brodsky, MD, sent a letter to ABIM’s President and Chief Executive Officer Richard Baron, MD, highlighting hematologists’ concerns about the MOC process and outlining immediate actions ABIM should take.

“ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program,” Dr. Brodsky stated in the Sept. 27 letter to Baron.

Dr. Brodsky highlighted, for instance, the fact that the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment – the alternative to the 10-year exam – “does not reflect real life practice, nor does it target each individual’s scope of practice.” Dr. Brodsky added that, according to members of ASH, the assessment is also “creating high levels of stress and contributing to burnout.”

The letter from Dr. Brodsky urged ABIM to “establish a new MOC program” that does not involve high-stakes assessments, reduces the number of Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment questions physicians receive, and eliminates redundancy between the MOC requirement to have a current license and the requirement to report continued medical education to ABIM.

The ABIM shared a copy of the letter in a Sept. 28 blog post defending the MOC process, highlighting past collaboration with ASH that “has led to meaningful enhancements to the [MOC] program” and committing to “continue to listen to and learn from the physician community going forward.”

The recent backlash against the MOC process stemmed from a petition demanding an end to the MOC. The petition was launched in July by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, who has been a vocal critic of the MOC process.

The criticism largely centered around the high costs and the “complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” Dr. Goodman wrote in the petition, which has garnered more than 20,700 signatures.

In August, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) published “SCAI Position on ABIM Revocation of Certification for Not Participating in MOC.” The Electrophysiology Advocacy Foundation and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) issued statements pushing back on the MOC as well.

On Sept. 21, the SCAI, HRS, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America went a step further and announced plans to create a new certification process that is independent of the ABIM MOC system.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is now also surveying members about their MOC experience. A Sept. 26 announcement encouraged recipients to check their inboxes for a link to an anonymous MOC Experience Questionnaire before Oct. 12 and thanked respondents for their “engagement as ASCO works to address this critical issue for the oncology community.”

After ASH sent its letter to ABIM, Dr. Goodman applauded the society’s stance in a post on his X (formerly Twitter) account. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented on ABIM’s response to ASH’s letter via X, noting, “If I were @ASH_hematology leadership, I would take ABIM response as disrespectful. A hasty response within a day is not a sign of good faith.”

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

Opposition to the current American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM’s) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) process continues to gain momentum, with the latest condemnation coming from the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

ASH president Robert A. Brodsky, MD, sent a letter to ABIM’s President and Chief Executive Officer Richard Baron, MD, highlighting hematologists’ concerns about the MOC process and outlining immediate actions ABIM should take.

“ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program,” Dr. Brodsky stated in the Sept. 27 letter to Baron.

Dr. Brodsky highlighted, for instance, the fact that the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment – the alternative to the 10-year exam – “does not reflect real life practice, nor does it target each individual’s scope of practice.” Dr. Brodsky added that, according to members of ASH, the assessment is also “creating high levels of stress and contributing to burnout.”

The letter from Dr. Brodsky urged ABIM to “establish a new MOC program” that does not involve high-stakes assessments, reduces the number of Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment questions physicians receive, and eliminates redundancy between the MOC requirement to have a current license and the requirement to report continued medical education to ABIM.

The ABIM shared a copy of the letter in a Sept. 28 blog post defending the MOC process, highlighting past collaboration with ASH that “has led to meaningful enhancements to the [MOC] program” and committing to “continue to listen to and learn from the physician community going forward.”

The recent backlash against the MOC process stemmed from a petition demanding an end to the MOC. The petition was launched in July by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, who has been a vocal critic of the MOC process.

The criticism largely centered around the high costs and the “complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” Dr. Goodman wrote in the petition, which has garnered more than 20,700 signatures.

In August, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) published “SCAI Position on ABIM Revocation of Certification for Not Participating in MOC.” The Electrophysiology Advocacy Foundation and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) issued statements pushing back on the MOC as well.

On Sept. 21, the SCAI, HRS, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America went a step further and announced plans to create a new certification process that is independent of the ABIM MOC system.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is now also surveying members about their MOC experience. A Sept. 26 announcement encouraged recipients to check their inboxes for a link to an anonymous MOC Experience Questionnaire before Oct. 12 and thanked respondents for their “engagement as ASCO works to address this critical issue for the oncology community.”

After ASH sent its letter to ABIM, Dr. Goodman applauded the society’s stance in a post on his X (formerly Twitter) account. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented on ABIM’s response to ASH’s letter via X, noting, “If I were @ASH_hematology leadership, I would take ABIM response as disrespectful. A hasty response within a day is not a sign of good faith.”

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

Chemotherapy drug shortages continue to plague major U.S. cancer centers, according to an update from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Although access to carboplatin and cisplatin has improved slightly since June, when 93% and 70% of 27 NCCN member institutions reported shortages of the two agents, supplies remain limited and other anticancer drugs remain scarce, an NCCN follow-up survey shows.

Of 29 institutions surveyed last month, 86% reported having difficulty obtaining at least one anticancer drug, and 72% and 59% reported ongoing shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin, respectively – drugs recommended for treating patients involved in hundreds of different cancer scenarios, according to the NCCN.

“Drug shortages aren’t new, but the widespread impact makes this one particularly alarming,” NCCN’s chief executive officer, Robert W. Carlson, MD, said in a press statement. “It is extremely concerning that this situation continues despite significant attention and effort over the past few months.”

The latest survey, conducted between Sept. 6 and 27, was sent to the 33 NCCN member institutions. Overall, most respondents reported “being able to continue treating every patient who needs carboplatin or cisplatin, despite lowered supply, primarily by implementing strict waste management strategies,” the network noted, adding that “the responses may not reflect any additional challenges experienced by smaller community practices serving rural and marginalized patients.”

In addition to carboplatin and cisplatin shortages, the survey results also revealed that centers are experiencing shortages of a host of other drugs, including methotrexate (66%), 5-flourouracil (55%), fludarabine (45%), hydrocortisone (41%), and dacarbazine (28%), according to the press release.

“These drug shortages are the result of decades of systemic challenges,” noted Alyssa Schatz, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN, in a press release. “We recognize that comprehensive solutions take time, and we appreciate everyone who has put forth proposals to improve investment in generics and our data infrastructure. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that the cancer drug shortage has been ongoing for months, which is unacceptable for anyone impacted by cancer today.”

Following the June survey, the NCCN called for action from the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers, encouraging them “to work together to ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care” and has since worked with multiple stakeholders and policymaking organizations to “advocate for short- and long-term fixes.”

“These new survey results remind us that we are still in an ongoing crisis and must respond with appropriate urgency,” Ms. Shatz added.

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

Chemotherapy drug shortages continue to plague major U.S. cancer centers, according to an update from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Although access to carboplatin and cisplatin has improved slightly since June, when 93% and 70% of 27 NCCN member institutions reported shortages of the two agents, supplies remain limited and other anticancer drugs remain scarce, an NCCN follow-up survey shows.

Of 29 institutions surveyed last month, 86% reported having difficulty obtaining at least one anticancer drug, and 72% and 59% reported ongoing shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin, respectively – drugs recommended for treating patients involved in hundreds of different cancer scenarios, according to the NCCN.

“Drug shortages aren’t new, but the widespread impact makes this one particularly alarming,” NCCN’s chief executive officer, Robert W. Carlson, MD, said in a press statement. “It is extremely concerning that this situation continues despite significant attention and effort over the past few months.”

The latest survey, conducted between Sept. 6 and 27, was sent to the 33 NCCN member institutions. Overall, most respondents reported “being able to continue treating every patient who needs carboplatin or cisplatin, despite lowered supply, primarily by implementing strict waste management strategies,” the network noted, adding that “the responses may not reflect any additional challenges experienced by smaller community practices serving rural and marginalized patients.”

In addition to carboplatin and cisplatin shortages, the survey results also revealed that centers are experiencing shortages of a host of other drugs, including methotrexate (66%), 5-flourouracil (55%), fludarabine (45%), hydrocortisone (41%), and dacarbazine (28%), according to the press release.

“These drug shortages are the result of decades of systemic challenges,” noted Alyssa Schatz, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN, in a press release. “We recognize that comprehensive solutions take time, and we appreciate everyone who has put forth proposals to improve investment in generics and our data infrastructure. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that the cancer drug shortage has been ongoing for months, which is unacceptable for anyone impacted by cancer today.”

Following the June survey, the NCCN called for action from the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers, encouraging them “to work together to ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care” and has since worked with multiple stakeholders and policymaking organizations to “advocate for short- and long-term fixes.”

“These new survey results remind us that we are still in an ongoing crisis and must respond with appropriate urgency,” Ms. Shatz added.

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

Chemotherapy drug shortages continue to plague major U.S. cancer centers, according to an update from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Although access to carboplatin and cisplatin has improved slightly since June, when 93% and 70% of 27 NCCN member institutions reported shortages of the two agents, supplies remain limited and other anticancer drugs remain scarce, an NCCN follow-up survey shows.

Of 29 institutions surveyed last month, 86% reported having difficulty obtaining at least one anticancer drug, and 72% and 59% reported ongoing shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin, respectively – drugs recommended for treating patients involved in hundreds of different cancer scenarios, according to the NCCN.

“Drug shortages aren’t new, but the widespread impact makes this one particularly alarming,” NCCN’s chief executive officer, Robert W. Carlson, MD, said in a press statement. “It is extremely concerning that this situation continues despite significant attention and effort over the past few months.”

The latest survey, conducted between Sept. 6 and 27, was sent to the 33 NCCN member institutions. Overall, most respondents reported “being able to continue treating every patient who needs carboplatin or cisplatin, despite lowered supply, primarily by implementing strict waste management strategies,” the network noted, adding that “the responses may not reflect any additional challenges experienced by smaller community practices serving rural and marginalized patients.”

In addition to carboplatin and cisplatin shortages, the survey results also revealed that centers are experiencing shortages of a host of other drugs, including methotrexate (66%), 5-flourouracil (55%), fludarabine (45%), hydrocortisone (41%), and dacarbazine (28%), according to the press release.

“These drug shortages are the result of decades of systemic challenges,” noted Alyssa Schatz, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN, in a press release. “We recognize that comprehensive solutions take time, and we appreciate everyone who has put forth proposals to improve investment in generics and our data infrastructure. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that the cancer drug shortage has been ongoing for months, which is unacceptable for anyone impacted by cancer today.”

Following the June survey, the NCCN called for action from the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers, encouraging them “to work together to ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care” and has since worked with multiple stakeholders and policymaking organizations to “advocate for short- and long-term fixes.”

“These new survey results remind us that we are still in an ongoing crisis and must respond with appropriate urgency,” Ms. Shatz added.

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

An innovative care model involving an expanded role for advanced practice radiation therapists (APRTs) has improved the quality and efficiency of care and reduced work-related distress among cancer care team members in the radiation oncology department of Mount Sinai Health System in New York.

At a time when clinician burnout is rampant, a novel approach that brings value to both patients and health systems – and helps advance the careers of highly educated and skilled practitioners – represents a welcome step forward, according to Samantha Skubish, MS, RT, chief technical director of radiation oncology and Mount Sinai.

In the new care model, APRTs work alongside radiation oncologists and support “the care of resource-intensive patient populations,” according to the Association of Community Cancer Centers, which recently recognized the Mount Sinai Health System program as a 2023 ACCC Innovator Award winner.

The new and improved “model for continuity of care” with the APRT role has “helped improve the patient experience and create a more streamlined, efficient process while also alleviating some of the burden on our physicians,” Ms. Skubish said in the ACCC press release. She explained that APRTs possess the skills, knowledge, and judgment to provide an elevated level of care, as evidenced by decades of international research.

A 2022 systematic review of APRT-based care models outside the United States explored how the models have worked. Overall, the research shows that such models improve quality, efficiency, wellness, and administrative outcomes, according to investigators.

At Mount Sinai, the first health system to develop the APRT role in the United States, research to demonstrate the benefits of APRT model continues. In 2021, an APRT working group was established to “garner a network of individuals across the country focused on the work to prove the advanced practice radiation therapy model in the U.S.,” according to Danielle McDonagh, MS, RT, Mount Sinai’s clinical coordinator of radiation sciences education and research.

A paper published in May by Ms. McDonagh and colleagues underscored the potential for “positive change and impact” of the APRT care model in radiation oncology.

“We’re all in this current and longstanding crisis of clinician shortages,” Kimberly Smith, MPA, explained in a video introducing the Mount Sinai program.

“If you look at your therapists’ skill set and allow them to work at the top of their license, you can provide a cost-saving solution that lends itself to value-based care,” said Ms. Smith, vice president of radiation oncology services at Mount Sinai.

Indeed, Sheryl Green, MBBCh, professor and medical director of radiation oncology at Mount Sinai, noted that “the APRT has allowed us to really improve the quality of care that we deliver, primarily in the aspects of optimizing and personalizing the patient experience.”

Ms. Skubish and Ms. Smith will share details of the new care model at the ACCC’s upcoming National Oncology Conference.

An innovative care model involving an expanded role for advanced practice radiation therapists (APRTs) has improved the quality and efficiency of care and reduced work-related distress among cancer care team members in the radiation oncology department of Mount Sinai Health System in New York.

At a time when clinician burnout is rampant, a novel approach that brings value to both patients and health systems – and helps advance the careers of highly educated and skilled practitioners – represents a welcome step forward, according to Samantha Skubish, MS, RT, chief technical director of radiation oncology and Mount Sinai.

In the new care model, APRTs work alongside radiation oncologists and support “the care of resource-intensive patient populations,” according to the Association of Community Cancer Centers, which recently recognized the Mount Sinai Health System program as a 2023 ACCC Innovator Award winner.

The new and improved “model for continuity of care” with the APRT role has “helped improve the patient experience and create a more streamlined, efficient process while also alleviating some of the burden on our physicians,” Ms. Skubish said in the ACCC press release. She explained that APRTs possess the skills, knowledge, and judgment to provide an elevated level of care, as evidenced by decades of international research.

A 2022 systematic review of APRT-based care models outside the United States explored how the models have worked. Overall, the research shows that such models improve quality, efficiency, wellness, and administrative outcomes, according to investigators.

At Mount Sinai, the first health system to develop the APRT role in the United States, research to demonstrate the benefits of APRT model continues. In 2021, an APRT working group was established to “garner a network of individuals across the country focused on the work to prove the advanced practice radiation therapy model in the U.S.,” according to Danielle McDonagh, MS, RT, Mount Sinai’s clinical coordinator of radiation sciences education and research.

A paper published in May by Ms. McDonagh and colleagues underscored the potential for “positive change and impact” of the APRT care model in radiation oncology.

“We’re all in this current and longstanding crisis of clinician shortages,” Kimberly Smith, MPA, explained in a video introducing the Mount Sinai program.

“If you look at your therapists’ skill set and allow them to work at the top of their license, you can provide a cost-saving solution that lends itself to value-based care,” said Ms. Smith, vice president of radiation oncology services at Mount Sinai.

Indeed, Sheryl Green, MBBCh, professor and medical director of radiation oncology at Mount Sinai, noted that “the APRT has allowed us to really improve the quality of care that we deliver, primarily in the aspects of optimizing and personalizing the patient experience.”

Ms. Skubish and Ms. Smith will share details of the new care model at the ACCC’s upcoming National Oncology Conference.

An innovative care model involving an expanded role for advanced practice radiation therapists (APRTs) has improved the quality and efficiency of care and reduced work-related distress among cancer care team members in the radiation oncology department of Mount Sinai Health System in New York.

At a time when clinician burnout is rampant, a novel approach that brings value to both patients and health systems – and helps advance the careers of highly educated and skilled practitioners – represents a welcome step forward, according to Samantha Skubish, MS, RT, chief technical director of radiation oncology and Mount Sinai.

In the new care model, APRTs work alongside radiation oncologists and support “the care of resource-intensive patient populations,” according to the Association of Community Cancer Centers, which recently recognized the Mount Sinai Health System program as a 2023 ACCC Innovator Award winner.

The new and improved “model for continuity of care” with the APRT role has “helped improve the patient experience and create a more streamlined, efficient process while also alleviating some of the burden on our physicians,” Ms. Skubish said in the ACCC press release. She explained that APRTs possess the skills, knowledge, and judgment to provide an elevated level of care, as evidenced by decades of international research.

A 2022 systematic review of APRT-based care models outside the United States explored how the models have worked. Overall, the research shows that such models improve quality, efficiency, wellness, and administrative outcomes, according to investigators.

At Mount Sinai, the first health system to develop the APRT role in the United States, research to demonstrate the benefits of APRT model continues. In 2021, an APRT working group was established to “garner a network of individuals across the country focused on the work to prove the advanced practice radiation therapy model in the U.S.,” according to Danielle McDonagh, MS, RT, Mount Sinai’s clinical coordinator of radiation sciences education and research.

A paper published in May by Ms. McDonagh and colleagues underscored the potential for “positive change and impact” of the APRT care model in radiation oncology.

“We’re all in this current and longstanding crisis of clinician shortages,” Kimberly Smith, MPA, explained in a video introducing the Mount Sinai program.

“If you look at your therapists’ skill set and allow them to work at the top of their license, you can provide a cost-saving solution that lends itself to value-based care,” said Ms. Smith, vice president of radiation oncology services at Mount Sinai.

Indeed, Sheryl Green, MBBCh, professor and medical director of radiation oncology at Mount Sinai, noted that “the APRT has allowed us to really improve the quality of care that we deliver, primarily in the aspects of optimizing and personalizing the patient experience.”

Ms. Skubish and Ms. Smith will share details of the new care model at the ACCC’s upcoming National Oncology Conference.

The risk of developing breast cancer in individuals with pathogenic cancer syndrome variants may be less elevated in those without a first-degree family history, according to findings from a large population-based cohort study.

Similar results were seen for patients with Lynch syndrome.

The findings suggest that a first-degree family history confers much of the risk that is associated with pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancers. Furthermore, to avoid overtreatment in those without a first-degree family history who undergo genetic testing, that history should be considered when discussing potential follow-up care, the investigators argue.

“This difference in penetrance in carrier individuals, if replicated in larger studies, could be sufficient to justify stratifying just individuals with a family history into high-risk groups currently eligible for specialist clinical care,” Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter College of Medicine and Health, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, England, and his colleagues noted.

To assess how population penetrance of familial cancer syndromes varies based on family history, researchers analyzed exome sequences and clinical data collected between March 2006 and June 25, 2021, from 454,712 UK Biobank participants with either breast or colorectal cancer, a self-reported family history of breast or colorectal cancer, and a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in the major genes associated with hereditary breast cancer or Lynch syndrome.

After researchers controlled for sex, death, recruitment center, screening, and prophylactic surgery, those with a pathogenic BRCA1 (n = 230) or BRCA2 (n = 611) variant had an increased risk of breast cancer, and the risk was higher in those with a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 10.3 and 7.8, respectively), than in those without a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 7.2 and 4.7), the investigators reported.

Penetrance to age 60 years was also higher in those with vs. without a first-degree family history (44.7% and 24.1% vs 22.8% and 17.9%, respectively).

Similarly, patients with Lynch syndrome and a pathogenic MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 variant (n = 89, 71, and 421, respectively) had an increased risk of colorectal cancer, and that risk was higher in those with vs. without a family history (relative hazard, 35.6, 48.0, and 9.9 vs. 13.0, 15.4, and 7.2). Penetrance to age 60 was higher for those with a pathogenic MLH1 and MSH2 variant with vs. without a family history (30.9% and 38% vs. 20.5% and 8.3%).

The study results were published online in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

“The findings of this study suggest that any universal policy of returning pathogenic cancer predisposing genetic variants found incidentally or through direct-to-consumer genetic testing of asymptomatic individuals should consider family history and other factors when counseling patients on the risks and benefits of follow-up care,” the investigators recommended. “It will be very difficult to counsel individuals as to their particular risk profile without further pedigree construction or investigations.

“If penetrance estimates from affected families are used, there is a danger of overmanagement of asymptomatic individuals with no family history of disease. These ‘patients-in-waiting’ may be exposed to unnecessary surveillance or more invasive prophylactic procedures,” they added.

This study was supported by an MRC grant. The authors reported having no competing interests.

The risk of developing breast cancer in individuals with pathogenic cancer syndrome variants may be less elevated in those without a first-degree family history, according to findings from a large population-based cohort study.

Similar results were seen for patients with Lynch syndrome.

The findings suggest that a first-degree family history confers much of the risk that is associated with pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancers. Furthermore, to avoid overtreatment in those without a first-degree family history who undergo genetic testing, that history should be considered when discussing potential follow-up care, the investigators argue.

“This difference in penetrance in carrier individuals, if replicated in larger studies, could be sufficient to justify stratifying just individuals with a family history into high-risk groups currently eligible for specialist clinical care,” Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter College of Medicine and Health, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, England, and his colleagues noted.

To assess how population penetrance of familial cancer syndromes varies based on family history, researchers analyzed exome sequences and clinical data collected between March 2006 and June 25, 2021, from 454,712 UK Biobank participants with either breast or colorectal cancer, a self-reported family history of breast or colorectal cancer, and a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in the major genes associated with hereditary breast cancer or Lynch syndrome.

After researchers controlled for sex, death, recruitment center, screening, and prophylactic surgery, those with a pathogenic BRCA1 (n = 230) or BRCA2 (n = 611) variant had an increased risk of breast cancer, and the risk was higher in those with a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 10.3 and 7.8, respectively), than in those without a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 7.2 and 4.7), the investigators reported.

Penetrance to age 60 years was also higher in those with vs. without a first-degree family history (44.7% and 24.1% vs 22.8% and 17.9%, respectively).

Similarly, patients with Lynch syndrome and a pathogenic MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 variant (n = 89, 71, and 421, respectively) had an increased risk of colorectal cancer, and that risk was higher in those with vs. without a family history (relative hazard, 35.6, 48.0, and 9.9 vs. 13.0, 15.4, and 7.2). Penetrance to age 60 was higher for those with a pathogenic MLH1 and MSH2 variant with vs. without a family history (30.9% and 38% vs. 20.5% and 8.3%).

The study results were published online in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

“The findings of this study suggest that any universal policy of returning pathogenic cancer predisposing genetic variants found incidentally or through direct-to-consumer genetic testing of asymptomatic individuals should consider family history and other factors when counseling patients on the risks and benefits of follow-up care,” the investigators recommended. “It will be very difficult to counsel individuals as to their particular risk profile without further pedigree construction or investigations.

“If penetrance estimates from affected families are used, there is a danger of overmanagement of asymptomatic individuals with no family history of disease. These ‘patients-in-waiting’ may be exposed to unnecessary surveillance or more invasive prophylactic procedures,” they added.

This study was supported by an MRC grant. The authors reported having no competing interests.

The risk of developing breast cancer in individuals with pathogenic cancer syndrome variants may be less elevated in those without a first-degree family history, according to findings from a large population-based cohort study.

Similar results were seen for patients with Lynch syndrome.

The findings suggest that a first-degree family history confers much of the risk that is associated with pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancers. Furthermore, to avoid overtreatment in those without a first-degree family history who undergo genetic testing, that history should be considered when discussing potential follow-up care, the investigators argue.

“This difference in penetrance in carrier individuals, if replicated in larger studies, could be sufficient to justify stratifying just individuals with a family history into high-risk groups currently eligible for specialist clinical care,” Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter College of Medicine and Health, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, England, and his colleagues noted.

To assess how population penetrance of familial cancer syndromes varies based on family history, researchers analyzed exome sequences and clinical data collected between March 2006 and June 25, 2021, from 454,712 UK Biobank participants with either breast or colorectal cancer, a self-reported family history of breast or colorectal cancer, and a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in the major genes associated with hereditary breast cancer or Lynch syndrome.

After researchers controlled for sex, death, recruitment center, screening, and prophylactic surgery, those with a pathogenic BRCA1 (n = 230) or BRCA2 (n = 611) variant had an increased risk of breast cancer, and the risk was higher in those with a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 10.3 and 7.8, respectively), than in those without a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 7.2 and 4.7), the investigators reported.

Penetrance to age 60 years was also higher in those with vs. without a first-degree family history (44.7% and 24.1% vs 22.8% and 17.9%, respectively).

Similarly, patients with Lynch syndrome and a pathogenic MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 variant (n = 89, 71, and 421, respectively) had an increased risk of colorectal cancer, and that risk was higher in those with vs. without a family history (relative hazard, 35.6, 48.0, and 9.9 vs. 13.0, 15.4, and 7.2). Penetrance to age 60 was higher for those with a pathogenic MLH1 and MSH2 variant with vs. without a family history (30.9% and 38% vs. 20.5% and 8.3%).

The study results were published online in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

“The findings of this study suggest that any universal policy of returning pathogenic cancer predisposing genetic variants found incidentally or through direct-to-consumer genetic testing of asymptomatic individuals should consider family history and other factors when counseling patients on the risks and benefits of follow-up care,” the investigators recommended. “It will be very difficult to counsel individuals as to their particular risk profile without further pedigree construction or investigations.

“If penetrance estimates from affected families are used, there is a danger of overmanagement of asymptomatic individuals with no family history of disease. These ‘patients-in-waiting’ may be exposed to unnecessary surveillance or more invasive prophylactic procedures,” they added.

This study was supported by an MRC grant. The authors reported having no competing interests.

Fear and a lack of health-related knowledge pose significant barriers to preventative cancer care access and effectiveness, recent survey data from The Harris Poll suggests.

The survey, commissioned by Bayer U.S. to identify patient behaviors and care barriers, indicates that more than one in four adults in the United States (27%) would rather not know if they have cancer, and nearly a third (31%) – particularly younger patients aged 18-44 years – avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of what they might learn.

Similarly, 26% of 2,079 respondents said that fear and anxiety are the main reasons why they don’t make or keep doctor appointments. Those with lower household income and education levels, those with children under age 18 years, and Hispanic adults were most likely to cite this reason.

Almost half (up to 49%) lacked knowledge about certain cancers and risk factors.

For example, 48% of respondents were unaware that breast density affects breast cancer risk and diagnosis, and 38% said they were not very knowledgeable about breast cancer.

Regarding prostate cancer, 49% were unaware that race impacts risk and 49% said they were not knowledgeable about the disease.

The survey highlighted a lack of trust in treatments and health care processes among most adults, especially those with lower income and education levels. Overall, 53% said they have little or no trust in treatments developed by pharmaceutical companies, and 31% said they have little or no trust in medical tests, test results, and other medical processes.

The findings of the survey, which was conducted online June 6-8, 2023, among U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, underscore the need to better educate individuals about cancer risk factors and the benefits of preventative care.

“The increase of fear and anxiety, heightened by a lack of education and in some cases trust barriers, creates an environment where people may not access basic preventative care to ensure early diagnosis,” Sebastian Guth, president of Bayer U.S. and Pharmaceuticals North America, stated in a press release. “This is compounded by the fact that around 27.4 million people of all ages (8.3%) don’t have access to health insurance.

“Companies like Bayer have a responsibility to provide resources that increase health education on the importance of understanding disease risks, early disease screenings, and preventative health care,” Mr. Guth added, noting that the company is partnering with multiple patient advocacy groups to increase trust, awareness, and knowledge “to help individuals understand the resources available to them and their risks for a specific disease.”

Public health initiatives have had mixed results with respect to changing patient behaviors over time, but Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) in October of each year is a stand-out initiative that could serve as a model for other patient education initiatives, according to a 2022 study.

The Google trends analysis showed that from 2012 to 2021, BCAM was associated with improved public awareness of breast cancer, whereas Lung Cancer Awareness Month and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month had no impact on lung and prostate cancer awareness, respectively, over time, reported Yoshita Nishimura, MD, of Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Japan, and Jared D. Acoba, MD, of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Dr. Nishimura and Dr. Acoba concluded that the success of BCAM, which was launched in 1985 and is now led by the National Breast Cancer Foundation, is likely a result of “the effective involvement of non-medical industries, influencers affected by breast cancer, and an awareness symbol.”

As for the role of physicians in raising awareness and increasing knowledge at the patient level, various guidelines focus on assessing patient needs and readiness to learn, communicating clearly, and identifying barriers, such as a lack of support and low health literacy.

An American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline for physician-patient communication, for example, provides guidance on core communication skills that apply across the continuum of care, as well as specific topics to address, such as patient goals, treatment options, and support systems – all with an eye toward using “effective communication to optimize the patient-clinician relationship, patient and clinician well-being and family well-being.”

Fear and a lack of health-related knowledge pose significant barriers to preventative cancer care access and effectiveness, recent survey data from The Harris Poll suggests.

The survey, commissioned by Bayer U.S. to identify patient behaviors and care barriers, indicates that more than one in four adults in the United States (27%) would rather not know if they have cancer, and nearly a third (31%) – particularly younger patients aged 18-44 years – avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of what they might learn.

Similarly, 26% of 2,079 respondents said that fear and anxiety are the main reasons why they don’t make or keep doctor appointments. Those with lower household income and education levels, those with children under age 18 years, and Hispanic adults were most likely to cite this reason.

Almost half (up to 49%) lacked knowledge about certain cancers and risk factors.

For example, 48% of respondents were unaware that breast density affects breast cancer risk and diagnosis, and 38% said they were not very knowledgeable about breast cancer.

Regarding prostate cancer, 49% were unaware that race impacts risk and 49% said they were not knowledgeable about the disease.

The survey highlighted a lack of trust in treatments and health care processes among most adults, especially those with lower income and education levels. Overall, 53% said they have little or no trust in treatments developed by pharmaceutical companies, and 31% said they have little or no trust in medical tests, test results, and other medical processes.

The findings of the survey, which was conducted online June 6-8, 2023, among U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, underscore the need to better educate individuals about cancer risk factors and the benefits of preventative care.

“The increase of fear and anxiety, heightened by a lack of education and in some cases trust barriers, creates an environment where people may not access basic preventative care to ensure early diagnosis,” Sebastian Guth, president of Bayer U.S. and Pharmaceuticals North America, stated in a press release. “This is compounded by the fact that around 27.4 million people of all ages (8.3%) don’t have access to health insurance.

“Companies like Bayer have a responsibility to provide resources that increase health education on the importance of understanding disease risks, early disease screenings, and preventative health care,” Mr. Guth added, noting that the company is partnering with multiple patient advocacy groups to increase trust, awareness, and knowledge “to help individuals understand the resources available to them and their risks for a specific disease.”

Public health initiatives have had mixed results with respect to changing patient behaviors over time, but Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) in October of each year is a stand-out initiative that could serve as a model for other patient education initiatives, according to a 2022 study.

The Google trends analysis showed that from 2012 to 2021, BCAM was associated with improved public awareness of breast cancer, whereas Lung Cancer Awareness Month and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month had no impact on lung and prostate cancer awareness, respectively, over time, reported Yoshita Nishimura, MD, of Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Japan, and Jared D. Acoba, MD, of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Dr. Nishimura and Dr. Acoba concluded that the success of BCAM, which was launched in 1985 and is now led by the National Breast Cancer Foundation, is likely a result of “the effective involvement of non-medical industries, influencers affected by breast cancer, and an awareness symbol.”

As for the role of physicians in raising awareness and increasing knowledge at the patient level, various guidelines focus on assessing patient needs and readiness to learn, communicating clearly, and identifying barriers, such as a lack of support and low health literacy.

An American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline for physician-patient communication, for example, provides guidance on core communication skills that apply across the continuum of care, as well as specific topics to address, such as patient goals, treatment options, and support systems – all with an eye toward using “effective communication to optimize the patient-clinician relationship, patient and clinician well-being and family well-being.”

Fear and a lack of health-related knowledge pose significant barriers to preventative cancer care access and effectiveness, recent survey data from The Harris Poll suggests.

The survey, commissioned by Bayer U.S. to identify patient behaviors and care barriers, indicates that more than one in four adults in the United States (27%) would rather not know if they have cancer, and nearly a third (31%) – particularly younger patients aged 18-44 years – avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of what they might learn.

Similarly, 26% of 2,079 respondents said that fear and anxiety are the main reasons why they don’t make or keep doctor appointments. Those with lower household income and education levels, those with children under age 18 years, and Hispanic adults were most likely to cite this reason.

Almost half (up to 49%) lacked knowledge about certain cancers and risk factors.

For example, 48% of respondents were unaware that breast density affects breast cancer risk and diagnosis, and 38% said they were not very knowledgeable about breast cancer.

Regarding prostate cancer, 49% were unaware that race impacts risk and 49% said they were not knowledgeable about the disease.

The survey highlighted a lack of trust in treatments and health care processes among most adults, especially those with lower income and education levels. Overall, 53% said they have little or no trust in treatments developed by pharmaceutical companies, and 31% said they have little or no trust in medical tests, test results, and other medical processes.

The findings of the survey, which was conducted online June 6-8, 2023, among U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, underscore the need to better educate individuals about cancer risk factors and the benefits of preventative care.

“The increase of fear and anxiety, heightened by a lack of education and in some cases trust barriers, creates an environment where people may not access basic preventative care to ensure early diagnosis,” Sebastian Guth, president of Bayer U.S. and Pharmaceuticals North America, stated in a press release. “This is compounded by the fact that around 27.4 million people of all ages (8.3%) don’t have access to health insurance.

“Companies like Bayer have a responsibility to provide resources that increase health education on the importance of understanding disease risks, early disease screenings, and preventative health care,” Mr. Guth added, noting that the company is partnering with multiple patient advocacy groups to increase trust, awareness, and knowledge “to help individuals understand the resources available to them and their risks for a specific disease.”

Public health initiatives have had mixed results with respect to changing patient behaviors over time, but Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) in October of each year is a stand-out initiative that could serve as a model for other patient education initiatives, according to a 2022 study.

The Google trends analysis showed that from 2012 to 2021, BCAM was associated with improved public awareness of breast cancer, whereas Lung Cancer Awareness Month and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month had no impact on lung and prostate cancer awareness, respectively, over time, reported Yoshita Nishimura, MD, of Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Japan, and Jared D. Acoba, MD, of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Dr. Nishimura and Dr. Acoba concluded that the success of BCAM, which was launched in 1985 and is now led by the National Breast Cancer Foundation, is likely a result of “the effective involvement of non-medical industries, influencers affected by breast cancer, and an awareness symbol.”

As for the role of physicians in raising awareness and increasing knowledge at the patient level, various guidelines focus on assessing patient needs and readiness to learn, communicating clearly, and identifying barriers, such as a lack of support and low health literacy.

An American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline for physician-patient communication, for example, provides guidance on core communication skills that apply across the continuum of care, as well as specific topics to address, such as patient goals, treatment options, and support systems – all with an eye toward using “effective communication to optimize the patient-clinician relationship, patient and clinician well-being and family well-being.”

Depression and anxiety were not associated with outcomes for most cancer types, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, and alcohol-related cancer, according to findings from a large, individual participant data meta-analysis.

An exception was for lung and smoking-related cancers, but key covariates appeared to explain the relationship between depression, anxiety, and these cancer types, the investigators reported.

The findings challenge a common theory that depression and anxiety increase cancer risk and should “change current thinking,” they argue.

“Our results may come as a relief to many patients with cancer who believe their diagnosis is attributed to previous anxiety or depression,” first author Lonneke A. van Tuijl, PhD, of the University of Groningen and Utrecht University, the Netherlands, noted in a press release.

Analyses included data from up to nearly 320,000 individuals from the 18 prospective cohorts included in the international Psychosocial Factors and Cancer Incidence (PSY-CA) consortium. The cohorts are from studies conducted in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada, and included 25,803 patients with cancer. During follow-up of up to 26 years and more than 3.2 million person-years, depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses showed no association with overall breast, prostate, colorectal, and alcohol-related cancers (hazard ratios, 0.98-1.05).

For the specific cancer types, the investigators “found no evidence for an association between depression or anxiety and the incidence of colorectal cancer (HRs, 0.88-1.13), prostate cancer (HRs, 0.97-1.17), or alcohol-related cancers (HRs, 0.97-1.06).”

“For breast cancer, all pooled HRs were consistently negative but mean pooled HRs were close to 1 (HRs, 0.92-0.98) and the upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals all exceeded 1 (with the exception of anxiety symptoms),” they noted.

An increase in risk observed between depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses and lung cancer (HRs, 1.12-1.60) and smoking-related cancers (HRs, 1.06-1.60), in minimally adjusted models, was substantially attenuated after adjusting for known risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, and body mass index (HRs, 1.04-1.08), the investigators reported.

The findings were published online in Cancer.

“Depression and anxiety have long been hypothesized to increase the risk for cancer. It is thought that the increased cancer risk can occur via several pathways, including health behaviors, or by influencing mutation, viral oncogenes, cell proliferation, or DNA repair,” the authors explained, noting that “[c]onclusions drawn in meta-analyses vary greatly, with some supporting an association between depression, anxiety, and cancer incidence and others finding no or a negligible association.”

The current findings “may help health professionals to alleviate feelings of guilt and self-blame in patients with cancer who attribute their diagnosis to previous depression or anxiety,” they said, noting that the findings “also underscore the importance of addressing tobacco smoking and other unhealthy behaviors – including those that may develop as a result of anxiety or depression.”

“However, further research is needed to understand exactly how depression, anxiety, health behaviors, and lung cancer are related,” said Dr. Tuijl.

Dr. Tuijl has received grants and travel support from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).
 

Depression and anxiety were not associated with outcomes for most cancer types, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, and alcohol-related cancer, according to findings from a large, individual participant data meta-analysis.

An exception was for lung and smoking-related cancers, but key covariates appeared to explain the relationship between depression, anxiety, and these cancer types, the investigators reported.

The findings challenge a common theory that depression and anxiety increase cancer risk and should “change current thinking,” they argue.

“Our results may come as a relief to many patients with cancer who believe their diagnosis is attributed to previous anxiety or depression,” first author Lonneke A. van Tuijl, PhD, of the University of Groningen and Utrecht University, the Netherlands, noted in a press release.

Analyses included data from up to nearly 320,000 individuals from the 18 prospective cohorts included in the international Psychosocial Factors and Cancer Incidence (PSY-CA) consortium. The cohorts are from studies conducted in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada, and included 25,803 patients with cancer. During follow-up of up to 26 years and more than 3.2 million person-years, depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses showed no association with overall breast, prostate, colorectal, and alcohol-related cancers (hazard ratios, 0.98-1.05).

For the specific cancer types, the investigators “found no evidence for an association between depression or anxiety and the incidence of colorectal cancer (HRs, 0.88-1.13), prostate cancer (HRs, 0.97-1.17), or alcohol-related cancers (HRs, 0.97-1.06).”

“For breast cancer, all pooled HRs were consistently negative but mean pooled HRs were close to 1 (HRs, 0.92-0.98) and the upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals all exceeded 1 (with the exception of anxiety symptoms),” they noted.

An increase in risk observed between depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses and lung cancer (HRs, 1.12-1.60) and smoking-related cancers (HRs, 1.06-1.60), in minimally adjusted models, was substantially attenuated after adjusting for known risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, and body mass index (HRs, 1.04-1.08), the investigators reported.

The findings were published online in Cancer.

“Depression and anxiety have long been hypothesized to increase the risk for cancer. It is thought that the increased cancer risk can occur via several pathways, including health behaviors, or by influencing mutation, viral oncogenes, cell proliferation, or DNA repair,” the authors explained, noting that “[c]onclusions drawn in meta-analyses vary greatly, with some supporting an association between depression, anxiety, and cancer incidence and others finding no or a negligible association.”

The current findings “may help health professionals to alleviate feelings of guilt and self-blame in patients with cancer who attribute their diagnosis to previous depression or anxiety,” they said, noting that the findings “also underscore the importance of addressing tobacco smoking and other unhealthy behaviors – including those that may develop as a result of anxiety or depression.”

“However, further research is needed to understand exactly how depression, anxiety, health behaviors, and lung cancer are related,” said Dr. Tuijl.

Dr. Tuijl has received grants and travel support from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).
 

Depression and anxiety were not associated with outcomes for most cancer types, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, and alcohol-related cancer, according to findings from a large, individual participant data meta-analysis.

An exception was for lung and smoking-related cancers, but key covariates appeared to explain the relationship between depression, anxiety, and these cancer types, the investigators reported.

The findings challenge a common theory that depression and anxiety increase cancer risk and should “change current thinking,” they argue.

“Our results may come as a relief to many patients with cancer who believe their diagnosis is attributed to previous anxiety or depression,” first author Lonneke A. van Tuijl, PhD, of the University of Groningen and Utrecht University, the Netherlands, noted in a press release.

Analyses included data from up to nearly 320,000 individuals from the 18 prospective cohorts included in the international Psychosocial Factors and Cancer Incidence (PSY-CA) consortium. The cohorts are from studies conducted in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada, and included 25,803 patients with cancer. During follow-up of up to 26 years and more than 3.2 million person-years, depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses showed no association with overall breast, prostate, colorectal, and alcohol-related cancers (hazard ratios, 0.98-1.05).

For the specific cancer types, the investigators “found no evidence for an association between depression or anxiety and the incidence of colorectal cancer (HRs, 0.88-1.13), prostate cancer (HRs, 0.97-1.17), or alcohol-related cancers (HRs, 0.97-1.06).”

“For breast cancer, all pooled HRs were consistently negative but mean pooled HRs were close to 1 (HRs, 0.92-0.98) and the upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals all exceeded 1 (with the exception of anxiety symptoms),” they noted.

An increase in risk observed between depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses and lung cancer (HRs, 1.12-1.60) and smoking-related cancers (HRs, 1.06-1.60), in minimally adjusted models, was substantially attenuated after adjusting for known risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, and body mass index (HRs, 1.04-1.08), the investigators reported.

The findings were published online in Cancer.

“Depression and anxiety have long been hypothesized to increase the risk for cancer. It is thought that the increased cancer risk can occur via several pathways, including health behaviors, or by influencing mutation, viral oncogenes, cell proliferation, or DNA repair,” the authors explained, noting that “[c]onclusions drawn in meta-analyses vary greatly, with some supporting an association between depression, anxiety, and cancer incidence and others finding no or a negligible association.”

The current findings “may help health professionals to alleviate feelings of guilt and self-blame in patients with cancer who attribute their diagnosis to previous depression or anxiety,” they said, noting that the findings “also underscore the importance of addressing tobacco smoking and other unhealthy behaviors – including those that may develop as a result of anxiety or depression.”

“However, further research is needed to understand exactly how depression, anxiety, health behaviors, and lung cancer are related,” said Dr. Tuijl.

Dr. Tuijl has received grants and travel support from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).