Breast Cancer ICYMI

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

Unexpected results from a phase 3 trial exploring the effect of multivitamins and cognition have now been published.

Findings from a phase 3 study show daily multivitamin use, but not cocoa, is linked to a significantly slower rate of age-related cognitive decline.

Originally presented last November at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, this is the first large-scale, long-term randomized controlled trial to examine the effects of cocoa extract and multivitamins on global cognition. The trial’s primary focus was on cocoa extract, which earlier studies suggest may preserve cognitive function. Analyzing the effect of multivitamins was a secondary outcome.

Showing vitamins, but not cocoa, were beneficial is the exact opposite of what researchers expected. Still, the results offer an interesting new direction for future study, lead investigator Laura D. Baker, PhD, professor of gerontology and geriatric medicine at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“This study made us take notice of a pathway for possible cognitive protection,” Dr. Baker said. “Without this study, we would never have looked down that road.”

The full results were published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Unexpected effect

The COSMOS-Mind study is a substudy to a larger parent trial called COSMOS. It investigated the effects of cocoa extract and a standard multivitamin-mineral on cardiovascular and cancer outcomes in more than 21,000 older participants.

In COSMOS-Mind, researchers tested whether daily intake of cocoa extract vs. placebo and a multivitamin-mineral vs. placebo improved cognition in older adults.

More than 2,200 participants aged 65 and older were enrolled and followed for 3 years. They completed tests over the telephone at baseline and annually to evaluate memory and other cognitive abilities.

Results showed cocoa extract had no effect on global cognition compared with placebo (mean z-score, 0.03; P = .28). Daily multivitamin use, however, did show significant benefits on global cognition vs. placebo (mean z, 0.07, P = .007).

The beneficial effect was most pronounced in participants with a history of cardiovascular disease (no history 0.06 vs. history 0.14; P = .01).

Researchers found similar protective effects for memory and executive function. 

Dr. Baker suggested one possible explanation for the positive effects of multivitamins may be the boost in micronutrients and essential minerals they provided.

“With nutrient-deficient diets plus a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other medical comorbidities that we know impact the bioavailability of these nutrients, we are possibly dealing with older adults who are at below optimum in terms of their essential micronutrients and minerals,” she said.

“Even suboptimum levels of micronutrients and essential minerals can have significant consequences for brain health,” she added.
 

More research needed

Intriguing as the results may be, more work is needed before the findings could affect nutritional guidance, according to Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association.

“While the Alzheimer’s Association is encouraged by these results, we are not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults,” Dr. Carrillo said in a statement.

“For now, and until there is more data, people should talk with their health care providers about the benefits and risks of all dietary supplements, including multivitamins,” she added.

Dr. Baker agreed, noting that the study was not designed to measure multivitamin use as a primary outcome. In addition, nearly 90% of the participants were non-Hispanic White, which is not representative of the overall population demographics.

The investigators are now designing another, larger trial that would include a more diverse participant pool. It will be aimed specifically at learning more about how and why multivitamins seem to offer a protective effect on cognition, Dr. Baker noted.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baker and Dr. Carrillo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Unexpected results from a phase 3 trial exploring the effect of multivitamins and cognition have now been published.

Findings from a phase 3 study show daily multivitamin use, but not cocoa, is linked to a significantly slower rate of age-related cognitive decline.

Originally presented last November at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, this is the first large-scale, long-term randomized controlled trial to examine the effects of cocoa extract and multivitamins on global cognition. The trial’s primary focus was on cocoa extract, which earlier studies suggest may preserve cognitive function. Analyzing the effect of multivitamins was a secondary outcome.

Showing vitamins, but not cocoa, were beneficial is the exact opposite of what researchers expected. Still, the results offer an interesting new direction for future study, lead investigator Laura D. Baker, PhD, professor of gerontology and geriatric medicine at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“This study made us take notice of a pathway for possible cognitive protection,” Dr. Baker said. “Without this study, we would never have looked down that road.”

The full results were published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Unexpected effect

The COSMOS-Mind study is a substudy to a larger parent trial called COSMOS. It investigated the effects of cocoa extract and a standard multivitamin-mineral on cardiovascular and cancer outcomes in more than 21,000 older participants.

In COSMOS-Mind, researchers tested whether daily intake of cocoa extract vs. placebo and a multivitamin-mineral vs. placebo improved cognition in older adults.

More than 2,200 participants aged 65 and older were enrolled and followed for 3 years. They completed tests over the telephone at baseline and annually to evaluate memory and other cognitive abilities.

Results showed cocoa extract had no effect on global cognition compared with placebo (mean z-score, 0.03; P = .28). Daily multivitamin use, however, did show significant benefits on global cognition vs. placebo (mean z, 0.07, P = .007).

The beneficial effect was most pronounced in participants with a history of cardiovascular disease (no history 0.06 vs. history 0.14; P = .01).

Researchers found similar protective effects for memory and executive function. 

Dr. Baker suggested one possible explanation for the positive effects of multivitamins may be the boost in micronutrients and essential minerals they provided.

“With nutrient-deficient diets plus a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other medical comorbidities that we know impact the bioavailability of these nutrients, we are possibly dealing with older adults who are at below optimum in terms of their essential micronutrients and minerals,” she said.

“Even suboptimum levels of micronutrients and essential minerals can have significant consequences for brain health,” she added.
 

More research needed

Intriguing as the results may be, more work is needed before the findings could affect nutritional guidance, according to Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association.

“While the Alzheimer’s Association is encouraged by these results, we are not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults,” Dr. Carrillo said in a statement.

“For now, and until there is more data, people should talk with their health care providers about the benefits and risks of all dietary supplements, including multivitamins,” she added.

Dr. Baker agreed, noting that the study was not designed to measure multivitamin use as a primary outcome. In addition, nearly 90% of the participants were non-Hispanic White, which is not representative of the overall population demographics.

The investigators are now designing another, larger trial that would include a more diverse participant pool. It will be aimed specifically at learning more about how and why multivitamins seem to offer a protective effect on cognition, Dr. Baker noted.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baker and Dr. Carrillo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Unexpected results from a phase 3 trial exploring the effect of multivitamins and cognition have now been published.

Findings from a phase 3 study show daily multivitamin use, but not cocoa, is linked to a significantly slower rate of age-related cognitive decline.

Originally presented last November at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, this is the first large-scale, long-term randomized controlled trial to examine the effects of cocoa extract and multivitamins on global cognition. The trial’s primary focus was on cocoa extract, which earlier studies suggest may preserve cognitive function. Analyzing the effect of multivitamins was a secondary outcome.

Showing vitamins, but not cocoa, were beneficial is the exact opposite of what researchers expected. Still, the results offer an interesting new direction for future study, lead investigator Laura D. Baker, PhD, professor of gerontology and geriatric medicine at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“This study made us take notice of a pathway for possible cognitive protection,” Dr. Baker said. “Without this study, we would never have looked down that road.”

The full results were published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Unexpected effect

The COSMOS-Mind study is a substudy to a larger parent trial called COSMOS. It investigated the effects of cocoa extract and a standard multivitamin-mineral on cardiovascular and cancer outcomes in more than 21,000 older participants.

In COSMOS-Mind, researchers tested whether daily intake of cocoa extract vs. placebo and a multivitamin-mineral vs. placebo improved cognition in older adults.

More than 2,200 participants aged 65 and older were enrolled and followed for 3 years. They completed tests over the telephone at baseline and annually to evaluate memory and other cognitive abilities.

Results showed cocoa extract had no effect on global cognition compared with placebo (mean z-score, 0.03; P = .28). Daily multivitamin use, however, did show significant benefits on global cognition vs. placebo (mean z, 0.07, P = .007).

The beneficial effect was most pronounced in participants with a history of cardiovascular disease (no history 0.06 vs. history 0.14; P = .01).

Researchers found similar protective effects for memory and executive function. 

Dr. Baker suggested one possible explanation for the positive effects of multivitamins may be the boost in micronutrients and essential minerals they provided.

“With nutrient-deficient diets plus a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other medical comorbidities that we know impact the bioavailability of these nutrients, we are possibly dealing with older adults who are at below optimum in terms of their essential micronutrients and minerals,” she said.

“Even suboptimum levels of micronutrients and essential minerals can have significant consequences for brain health,” she added.
 

More research needed

Intriguing as the results may be, more work is needed before the findings could affect nutritional guidance, according to Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association.

“While the Alzheimer’s Association is encouraged by these results, we are not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults,” Dr. Carrillo said in a statement.

“For now, and until there is more data, people should talk with their health care providers about the benefits and risks of all dietary supplements, including multivitamins,” she added.

Dr. Baker agreed, noting that the study was not designed to measure multivitamin use as a primary outcome. In addition, nearly 90% of the participants were non-Hispanic White, which is not representative of the overall population demographics.

The investigators are now designing another, larger trial that would include a more diverse participant pool. It will be aimed specifically at learning more about how and why multivitamins seem to offer a protective effect on cognition, Dr. Baker noted.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baker and Dr. Carrillo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who undergo lung cancer surgery and who receive long-term opioids for pain relief have an elevated risk of all-cause mortality at 2 years, a new study suggests. That risk was 40% higher than among patients who did not receive opioids.

“This is the first study to identify the association of new long-term opioid use with poorer long-term survival outcomes after lung cancer surgery using real-world data based on a national registration database,” said the authors, led by In-Ae Song, MD, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.

“New long-term opioid use may be associated with poor long-term survival outcomes, especially in potent opioid users,” they concluded.

Long-term opioid use might promote protumor activity secondary to immunosuppression along with migration of tumor cells and angiogenesis, the authors suggested.

The study was published online in Regional Anesthesia and Pain.

The finding comes from a study that used the South Korean National Health Insurance database as a nationwide registration data source. “All patients undergoing lung cancer surgery between 2011 and 2018 were included,” the authors noted.

In total, 54,509 patients were included in the final analysis. Six months after undergoing the procedure, 3,325 patients (6.1%) had been prescribed opioids continuously and regularly. These patients constituted the new long-term opioid user group.

This finding fits in with those from past studies that have suggested that new long-term postoperative pain is reported in 4%-12% of patients who undergo lung cancer surgeries, the authors commented.

The new study found that all-cause mortality at 2 years was significantly higher in the new long-term opioid user group than it was in the non–opioid user group (17.3% vs. 9.3%; P < .001).

Moreover, the new long-term opioid user group were at 43% higher risk of 2-year lung cancer mortality and 29% higher risk of 2-year non–lung cancer mortality.

The investigators divided the patients who had received long-term opioids into two subgroups – those who received more potent opioids (1.6%), and those who received less potent opioids (4.5%).

There was a big difference in the results for all-cause mortality.

Compared with nonopioid users, long-term use of less potent opioids was associated with a 2-year mortality risk of only 22% (P < .001), whereas the patients who used potent opioids were at a 92% increased risk of all-cause mortality.

A number of risk factors were associated with an increased rate of new long-term opioid use. These included older age, being male, length of stay in hospital, and comorbidities.

In addition, patients who were more likely to receive long-term opioids included those who had received neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy and those who had experienced preoperative anxiety disorder or insomnia disorder.

In contrast, patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery were less likely to receive long-term opioids, the authors noted.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who undergo lung cancer surgery and who receive long-term opioids for pain relief have an elevated risk of all-cause mortality at 2 years, a new study suggests. That risk was 40% higher than among patients who did not receive opioids.

“This is the first study to identify the association of new long-term opioid use with poorer long-term survival outcomes after lung cancer surgery using real-world data based on a national registration database,” said the authors, led by In-Ae Song, MD, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.

“New long-term opioid use may be associated with poor long-term survival outcomes, especially in potent opioid users,” they concluded.

Long-term opioid use might promote protumor activity secondary to immunosuppression along with migration of tumor cells and angiogenesis, the authors suggested.

The study was published online in Regional Anesthesia and Pain.

The finding comes from a study that used the South Korean National Health Insurance database as a nationwide registration data source. “All patients undergoing lung cancer surgery between 2011 and 2018 were included,” the authors noted.

In total, 54,509 patients were included in the final analysis. Six months after undergoing the procedure, 3,325 patients (6.1%) had been prescribed opioids continuously and regularly. These patients constituted the new long-term opioid user group.

This finding fits in with those from past studies that have suggested that new long-term postoperative pain is reported in 4%-12% of patients who undergo lung cancer surgeries, the authors commented.

The new study found that all-cause mortality at 2 years was significantly higher in the new long-term opioid user group than it was in the non–opioid user group (17.3% vs. 9.3%; P < .001).

Moreover, the new long-term opioid user group were at 43% higher risk of 2-year lung cancer mortality and 29% higher risk of 2-year non–lung cancer mortality.

The investigators divided the patients who had received long-term opioids into two subgroups – those who received more potent opioids (1.6%), and those who received less potent opioids (4.5%).

There was a big difference in the results for all-cause mortality.

Compared with nonopioid users, long-term use of less potent opioids was associated with a 2-year mortality risk of only 22% (P < .001), whereas the patients who used potent opioids were at a 92% increased risk of all-cause mortality.

A number of risk factors were associated with an increased rate of new long-term opioid use. These included older age, being male, length of stay in hospital, and comorbidities.

In addition, patients who were more likely to receive long-term opioids included those who had received neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy and those who had experienced preoperative anxiety disorder or insomnia disorder.

In contrast, patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery were less likely to receive long-term opioids, the authors noted.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who undergo lung cancer surgery and who receive long-term opioids for pain relief have an elevated risk of all-cause mortality at 2 years, a new study suggests. That risk was 40% higher than among patients who did not receive opioids.

“This is the first study to identify the association of new long-term opioid use with poorer long-term survival outcomes after lung cancer surgery using real-world data based on a national registration database,” said the authors, led by In-Ae Song, MD, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.

“New long-term opioid use may be associated with poor long-term survival outcomes, especially in potent opioid users,” they concluded.

Long-term opioid use might promote protumor activity secondary to immunosuppression along with migration of tumor cells and angiogenesis, the authors suggested.

The study was published online in Regional Anesthesia and Pain.

The finding comes from a study that used the South Korean National Health Insurance database as a nationwide registration data source. “All patients undergoing lung cancer surgery between 2011 and 2018 were included,” the authors noted.

In total, 54,509 patients were included in the final analysis. Six months after undergoing the procedure, 3,325 patients (6.1%) had been prescribed opioids continuously and regularly. These patients constituted the new long-term opioid user group.

This finding fits in with those from past studies that have suggested that new long-term postoperative pain is reported in 4%-12% of patients who undergo lung cancer surgeries, the authors commented.

The new study found that all-cause mortality at 2 years was significantly higher in the new long-term opioid user group than it was in the non–opioid user group (17.3% vs. 9.3%; P < .001).

Moreover, the new long-term opioid user group were at 43% higher risk of 2-year lung cancer mortality and 29% higher risk of 2-year non–lung cancer mortality.

The investigators divided the patients who had received long-term opioids into two subgroups – those who received more potent opioids (1.6%), and those who received less potent opioids (4.5%).

There was a big difference in the results for all-cause mortality.

Compared with nonopioid users, long-term use of less potent opioids was associated with a 2-year mortality risk of only 22% (P < .001), whereas the patients who used potent opioids were at a 92% increased risk of all-cause mortality.

A number of risk factors were associated with an increased rate of new long-term opioid use. These included older age, being male, length of stay in hospital, and comorbidities.

In addition, patients who were more likely to receive long-term opioids included those who had received neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy and those who had experienced preoperative anxiety disorder or insomnia disorder.

In contrast, patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery were less likely to receive long-term opioids, the authors noted.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Introduction

Hematologists and oncologists (HO) face mortality daily. “Death Cafe” (DC) is a safe space set aside for open dialogue about death and dying. Despite origins outside the healthcare setting, DC has been used as a framework to help health care students and workers process death and dying. We aim to assess if DC sessions are perceived to have value by HO trainees and faculty.

Methods

HO fellows from Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) and HO Faculty from BCM, mostly those at the Houston Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Hospital (VA), were offered the opportunity to participate in the DC sessions. Our VA Cancer Center Chaplain was present for all sessions and helped facilitate the conversation. HO fellows who were invited to a DC and attended were emailed a survey questionnaire after the activity via survey monkey. The sessions and the surveys were not compulsory. Their participation in the session and completion of surveys implied informed consent. After IRB approval, we reviewed responses for the study groups. Sessions were held in person pre-pandemic in 2019 and virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022.

Results

Five fellows responded to our survey in 2019 and 7 in 2022 for a total of 12 respondents. 100% of respondents had been emotionally affected by a patient’s death. 82% had been emotionally affected by a patient’s death during the preceding 3 months. 90% had previously discussed their emotions relating to patient death with others. 83% would participate in DC again and 92% would recommend DC to a colleague. One 2019 participant commented that they thought attendings needed the session more than fellows, 2 2022 participants commented that they believe the meeting would be better in person. One 2022 participant commented they thought DC “is a good platform to vent emotions, identify self-destructive thoughts and better coping mechanisms.”

Conclusions 

DC provides a framework for HC to share personal and professional experience with mortality from a human perspective and support each other. This approach may be useful for HO departments or fellowships to offer as an opportunity to process end-of-life matters experienced as providers and finite humans.

Introduction

Hematologists and oncologists (HO) face mortality daily. “Death Cafe” (DC) is a safe space set aside for open dialogue about death and dying. Despite origins outside the healthcare setting, DC has been used as a framework to help health care students and workers process death and dying. We aim to assess if DC sessions are perceived to have value by HO trainees and faculty.

Methods

HO fellows from Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) and HO Faculty from BCM, mostly those at the Houston Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Hospital (VA), were offered the opportunity to participate in the DC sessions. Our VA Cancer Center Chaplain was present for all sessions and helped facilitate the conversation. HO fellows who were invited to a DC and attended were emailed a survey questionnaire after the activity via survey monkey. The sessions and the surveys were not compulsory. Their participation in the session and completion of surveys implied informed consent. After IRB approval, we reviewed responses for the study groups. Sessions were held in person pre-pandemic in 2019 and virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022.

Results

Five fellows responded to our survey in 2019 and 7 in 2022 for a total of 12 respondents. 100% of respondents had been emotionally affected by a patient’s death. 82% had been emotionally affected by a patient’s death during the preceding 3 months. 90% had previously discussed their emotions relating to patient death with others. 83% would participate in DC again and 92% would recommend DC to a colleague. One 2019 participant commented that they thought attendings needed the session more than fellows, 2 2022 participants commented that they believe the meeting would be better in person. One 2022 participant commented they thought DC “is a good platform to vent emotions, identify self-destructive thoughts and better coping mechanisms.”

Conclusions 

DC provides a framework for HC to share personal and professional experience with mortality from a human perspective and support each other. This approach may be useful for HO departments or fellowships to offer as an opportunity to process end-of-life matters experienced as providers and finite humans.

Introduction

Hematologists and oncologists (HO) face mortality daily. “Death Cafe” (DC) is a safe space set aside for open dialogue about death and dying. Despite origins outside the healthcare setting, DC has been used as a framework to help health care students and workers process death and dying. We aim to assess if DC sessions are perceived to have value by HO trainees and faculty.

Methods

HO fellows from Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) and HO Faculty from BCM, mostly those at the Houston Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Hospital (VA), were offered the opportunity to participate in the DC sessions. Our VA Cancer Center Chaplain was present for all sessions and helped facilitate the conversation. HO fellows who were invited to a DC and attended were emailed a survey questionnaire after the activity via survey monkey. The sessions and the surveys were not compulsory. Their participation in the session and completion of surveys implied informed consent. After IRB approval, we reviewed responses for the study groups. Sessions were held in person pre-pandemic in 2019 and virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022.

Results

Five fellows responded to our survey in 2019 and 7 in 2022 for a total of 12 respondents. 100% of respondents had been emotionally affected by a patient’s death. 82% had been emotionally affected by a patient’s death during the preceding 3 months. 90% had previously discussed their emotions relating to patient death with others. 83% would participate in DC again and 92% would recommend DC to a colleague. One 2019 participant commented that they thought attendings needed the session more than fellows, 2 2022 participants commented that they believe the meeting would be better in person. One 2022 participant commented they thought DC “is a good platform to vent emotions, identify self-destructive thoughts and better coping mechanisms.”

Conclusions 

DC provides a framework for HC to share personal and professional experience with mortality from a human perspective and support each other. This approach may be useful for HO departments or fellowships to offer as an opportunity to process end-of-life matters experienced as providers and finite humans.