Breast Cancer ICYMI

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

A new blood test that analyzes DNA shed by metastatic cancers could reveal characteristics unique to each patient’s tumor and allow physicians to develop more personalized treatment plans, according to a new report.

The blood test focuses on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). By sequencing the complete genome of ctDNA, researchers can learn about the different metastases spread throughout the body.

“A key goal in cancer research is to better understand metastatic cancer in each affected person so we can select the best treatments and avoid giving toxic therapies to people who will not derive benefit,” senior author Alexander Wyatt, MD, DPhil, assistant professor of genitourinary cancer genomics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and senior research scientist at the Vancouver Prostate Center, told this news organization.

“However, biopsies of metastatic cancer are rarely performed since they are invasive and have risks of complications,” he said. “In the past, this major barrier has prevented the widespread study of metastatic cancer and progress to better treatment of this lethal disease.”

The study was published in Nature.
 

Test methods

Blood-based biopsy technology, also known as “liquid biopsy,” has emerged as a tool for clinical cancer genotyping and longitudinal disease monitoring. Tests that use ctDNA have begun to influence the clinical management of people with cancer, the study authors wrote, though the full potential for understanding metastatic cancer biology hasn’t yet been unlocked.

Dr. Wyatt and colleagues analyzed serial plasma and synchronous metastases in patients with aggressive, treatment-resistant prostate cancer through deep whole-genome sequencing, which allows for a comprehensive assessment of every part of the genetic code within the cancer cells.

The researchers assessed all classes of genomic alterations and found that ctDNA contains multiple dominant populations, indicating that most people with metastatic cancer have different metastases spread around the body. They found that the whole-genome sequencing process provides a host of information about these different metastases.

The research team used newly developed computer programs to provide information about the genetic makeup of each cancer population, which can tell researchers about a person’s overall disease rather than about one metastatic tumor. In the future, this information could allow clinicians to make better decisions about managing a patient’s cancer.

The researchers studied multiple ctDNA samples collected over time to understand how a patient’s cancer evolved in response to treatment. They focused on inhibitors of the androgen receptor pathway. They found that current therapies for metastatic prostate cancer actively change the composition of cancer populations in the body and that treatment often selects for biologically aggressive cancer populations that underlie clinical resistance. This allowed them to pinpoint new genetic resistance mechanisms to the most common treatments for metastatic prostate cancer. The technique could be applied to other cancers as well.

The research team used nucleosome footprints in ctDNA to infer mRNA expression in metastases upon which biopsies were synchronously performed. They identified treatment-induced changes in androgen receptor transcription factor signaling activity. This means whole-genome sequencing of ctDNA can reveal the active processes occurring within cells, allowing clinicians to predict which treatments will be effective or ineffective in each patient.

“Our research significantly expands the breadth of cancer information that can be obtained from only a few drops of blood,” said Dr. Wyatt. “From a clinical perspective, this extra information can be used in new clinical trials that are testing strategies to direct cancer treatments only to those whose quality or whose length of life will be improved.”
 

Clinical trials

The study authors wrote that whole-genome ctDNA sequencing technology, which is minimally invasive, inexpensive, and scalable, is now being deployed in large clinical trials to help discover new treatment resistance mechanisms. These include precision oncology clinical trials that are being conducted with Canadian cancer patients at the Vancouver Prostate Centre and BC Cancer.

The technology can also be implemented in existing commercial ctDNA testing platforms, which means that patients could soon directly benefit from more comprehensive liquid biopsy testing. The research team has made the methods and computer code publicly and freely available so that the technology can be applied to other cancer types and clinical settings.

“Understanding how clonal evolution occurs and what drives it is one of the key questions that need to be addressed in almost all cancers, and this study provides that level of insight for advanced prostate cancer, as well as a model and tools for how to carry out this work,” Christopher Mueller, MD, PhD, a cancer biologist and geneticist at Queen’s Cancer Research Institute and a professor of biomedical and molecular sciences at Queen’s University, both in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

Dr. Mueller, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched biomarkers and ctDNA as avenues for more precise management of advanced prostate cancer. He and his colleagues have developed blood tests for detecting and monitoring metastatic breast cancer, uveal melanoma, and prostate, pancreatic, and lung cancer.

“The expansion of treatment-resistant clones is how we lose almost all cancer patients, and they clearly demonstrate that in castrate-resistant prostate cancer, changes in the androgen receptor locus almost always drive this process,” Dr. Mueller said. “Understanding clonal evolution will allow us to design treatment strategies that overcome or limit their expansion, hopefully extending the lives of these patients.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Prostate Cancer Canada, the Movember Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence program, the Terry Fox New Frontiers Program, and the BC Cancer Foundation. Dr. Wyatt has served on advisory boards or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, and Merck, and his research lab has a contract research agreement with ESSA Pharma. Dr. Mueller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new blood test that analyzes DNA shed by metastatic cancers could reveal characteristics unique to each patient’s tumor and allow physicians to develop more personalized treatment plans, according to a new report.

The blood test focuses on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). By sequencing the complete genome of ctDNA, researchers can learn about the different metastases spread throughout the body.

“A key goal in cancer research is to better understand metastatic cancer in each affected person so we can select the best treatments and avoid giving toxic therapies to people who will not derive benefit,” senior author Alexander Wyatt, MD, DPhil, assistant professor of genitourinary cancer genomics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and senior research scientist at the Vancouver Prostate Center, told this news organization.

“However, biopsies of metastatic cancer are rarely performed since they are invasive and have risks of complications,” he said. “In the past, this major barrier has prevented the widespread study of metastatic cancer and progress to better treatment of this lethal disease.”

The study was published in Nature.
 

Test methods

Blood-based biopsy technology, also known as “liquid biopsy,” has emerged as a tool for clinical cancer genotyping and longitudinal disease monitoring. Tests that use ctDNA have begun to influence the clinical management of people with cancer, the study authors wrote, though the full potential for understanding metastatic cancer biology hasn’t yet been unlocked.

Dr. Wyatt and colleagues analyzed serial plasma and synchronous metastases in patients with aggressive, treatment-resistant prostate cancer through deep whole-genome sequencing, which allows for a comprehensive assessment of every part of the genetic code within the cancer cells.

The researchers assessed all classes of genomic alterations and found that ctDNA contains multiple dominant populations, indicating that most people with metastatic cancer have different metastases spread around the body. They found that the whole-genome sequencing process provides a host of information about these different metastases.

The research team used newly developed computer programs to provide information about the genetic makeup of each cancer population, which can tell researchers about a person’s overall disease rather than about one metastatic tumor. In the future, this information could allow clinicians to make better decisions about managing a patient’s cancer.

The researchers studied multiple ctDNA samples collected over time to understand how a patient’s cancer evolved in response to treatment. They focused on inhibitors of the androgen receptor pathway. They found that current therapies for metastatic prostate cancer actively change the composition of cancer populations in the body and that treatment often selects for biologically aggressive cancer populations that underlie clinical resistance. This allowed them to pinpoint new genetic resistance mechanisms to the most common treatments for metastatic prostate cancer. The technique could be applied to other cancers as well.

The research team used nucleosome footprints in ctDNA to infer mRNA expression in metastases upon which biopsies were synchronously performed. They identified treatment-induced changes in androgen receptor transcription factor signaling activity. This means whole-genome sequencing of ctDNA can reveal the active processes occurring within cells, allowing clinicians to predict which treatments will be effective or ineffective in each patient.

“Our research significantly expands the breadth of cancer information that can be obtained from only a few drops of blood,” said Dr. Wyatt. “From a clinical perspective, this extra information can be used in new clinical trials that are testing strategies to direct cancer treatments only to those whose quality or whose length of life will be improved.”
 

Clinical trials

The study authors wrote that whole-genome ctDNA sequencing technology, which is minimally invasive, inexpensive, and scalable, is now being deployed in large clinical trials to help discover new treatment resistance mechanisms. These include precision oncology clinical trials that are being conducted with Canadian cancer patients at the Vancouver Prostate Centre and BC Cancer.

The technology can also be implemented in existing commercial ctDNA testing platforms, which means that patients could soon directly benefit from more comprehensive liquid biopsy testing. The research team has made the methods and computer code publicly and freely available so that the technology can be applied to other cancer types and clinical settings.

“Understanding how clonal evolution occurs and what drives it is one of the key questions that need to be addressed in almost all cancers, and this study provides that level of insight for advanced prostate cancer, as well as a model and tools for how to carry out this work,” Christopher Mueller, MD, PhD, a cancer biologist and geneticist at Queen’s Cancer Research Institute and a professor of biomedical and molecular sciences at Queen’s University, both in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

Dr. Mueller, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched biomarkers and ctDNA as avenues for more precise management of advanced prostate cancer. He and his colleagues have developed blood tests for detecting and monitoring metastatic breast cancer, uveal melanoma, and prostate, pancreatic, and lung cancer.

“The expansion of treatment-resistant clones is how we lose almost all cancer patients, and they clearly demonstrate that in castrate-resistant prostate cancer, changes in the androgen receptor locus almost always drive this process,” Dr. Mueller said. “Understanding clonal evolution will allow us to design treatment strategies that overcome or limit their expansion, hopefully extending the lives of these patients.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Prostate Cancer Canada, the Movember Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence program, the Terry Fox New Frontiers Program, and the BC Cancer Foundation. Dr. Wyatt has served on advisory boards or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, and Merck, and his research lab has a contract research agreement with ESSA Pharma. Dr. Mueller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new blood test that analyzes DNA shed by metastatic cancers could reveal characteristics unique to each patient’s tumor and allow physicians to develop more personalized treatment plans, according to a new report.

The blood test focuses on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). By sequencing the complete genome of ctDNA, researchers can learn about the different metastases spread throughout the body.

“A key goal in cancer research is to better understand metastatic cancer in each affected person so we can select the best treatments and avoid giving toxic therapies to people who will not derive benefit,” senior author Alexander Wyatt, MD, DPhil, assistant professor of genitourinary cancer genomics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and senior research scientist at the Vancouver Prostate Center, told this news organization.

“However, biopsies of metastatic cancer are rarely performed since they are invasive and have risks of complications,” he said. “In the past, this major barrier has prevented the widespread study of metastatic cancer and progress to better treatment of this lethal disease.”

The study was published in Nature.
 

Test methods

Blood-based biopsy technology, also known as “liquid biopsy,” has emerged as a tool for clinical cancer genotyping and longitudinal disease monitoring. Tests that use ctDNA have begun to influence the clinical management of people with cancer, the study authors wrote, though the full potential for understanding metastatic cancer biology hasn’t yet been unlocked.

Dr. Wyatt and colleagues analyzed serial plasma and synchronous metastases in patients with aggressive, treatment-resistant prostate cancer through deep whole-genome sequencing, which allows for a comprehensive assessment of every part of the genetic code within the cancer cells.

The researchers assessed all classes of genomic alterations and found that ctDNA contains multiple dominant populations, indicating that most people with metastatic cancer have different metastases spread around the body. They found that the whole-genome sequencing process provides a host of information about these different metastases.

The research team used newly developed computer programs to provide information about the genetic makeup of each cancer population, which can tell researchers about a person’s overall disease rather than about one metastatic tumor. In the future, this information could allow clinicians to make better decisions about managing a patient’s cancer.

The researchers studied multiple ctDNA samples collected over time to understand how a patient’s cancer evolved in response to treatment. They focused on inhibitors of the androgen receptor pathway. They found that current therapies for metastatic prostate cancer actively change the composition of cancer populations in the body and that treatment often selects for biologically aggressive cancer populations that underlie clinical resistance. This allowed them to pinpoint new genetic resistance mechanisms to the most common treatments for metastatic prostate cancer. The technique could be applied to other cancers as well.

The research team used nucleosome footprints in ctDNA to infer mRNA expression in metastases upon which biopsies were synchronously performed. They identified treatment-induced changes in androgen receptor transcription factor signaling activity. This means whole-genome sequencing of ctDNA can reveal the active processes occurring within cells, allowing clinicians to predict which treatments will be effective or ineffective in each patient.

“Our research significantly expands the breadth of cancer information that can be obtained from only a few drops of blood,” said Dr. Wyatt. “From a clinical perspective, this extra information can be used in new clinical trials that are testing strategies to direct cancer treatments only to those whose quality or whose length of life will be improved.”
 

Clinical trials

The study authors wrote that whole-genome ctDNA sequencing technology, which is minimally invasive, inexpensive, and scalable, is now being deployed in large clinical trials to help discover new treatment resistance mechanisms. These include precision oncology clinical trials that are being conducted with Canadian cancer patients at the Vancouver Prostate Centre and BC Cancer.

The technology can also be implemented in existing commercial ctDNA testing platforms, which means that patients could soon directly benefit from more comprehensive liquid biopsy testing. The research team has made the methods and computer code publicly and freely available so that the technology can be applied to other cancer types and clinical settings.

“Understanding how clonal evolution occurs and what drives it is one of the key questions that need to be addressed in almost all cancers, and this study provides that level of insight for advanced prostate cancer, as well as a model and tools for how to carry out this work,” Christopher Mueller, MD, PhD, a cancer biologist and geneticist at Queen’s Cancer Research Institute and a professor of biomedical and molecular sciences at Queen’s University, both in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

Dr. Mueller, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched biomarkers and ctDNA as avenues for more precise management of advanced prostate cancer. He and his colleagues have developed blood tests for detecting and monitoring metastatic breast cancer, uveal melanoma, and prostate, pancreatic, and lung cancer.

“The expansion of treatment-resistant clones is how we lose almost all cancer patients, and they clearly demonstrate that in castrate-resistant prostate cancer, changes in the androgen receptor locus almost always drive this process,” Dr. Mueller said. “Understanding clonal evolution will allow us to design treatment strategies that overcome or limit their expansion, hopefully extending the lives of these patients.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Prostate Cancer Canada, the Movember Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence program, the Terry Fox New Frontiers Program, and the BC Cancer Foundation. Dr. Wyatt has served on advisory boards or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, and Merck, and his research lab has a contract research agreement with ESSA Pharma. Dr. Mueller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young women with a new diagnosis of node-negative triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have high levels of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) have a very good long-term prognosis, and may be suitable candidates for reduced intensity pre- or postoperative chemotherapy, according to a team of European investigators.

Among 441 women in a Dutch cancer registry who were younger than 40 when they were diagnosed with node-negative TNBC and had not undergone systemic therapy, those who had 75% or more TILs in the intratumoral stromal area had a 15-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases or death of just 2.1%, and every 10% increase in sTILs was associated with a 19% decrease in the risk of death.

In contrast, the 15-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases was 38.4% for women with stromal TIL scores of less than 30%, according to researchers writing in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“These data could be used as a starting point for designing a randomized controlled chemotherapy de-escalation trial. The current study confirms the importance of sTILs as a valuable addition to the set of standard prognostic factors in patients with TNBC,” wrote the researchers, who were led by Sabine C. Linn, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
 

Markers for immune response

Stromal TILs, a mixture of mononuclear immune cells, have been shown in previous studies to be prognostic for outcomes in patients with early-stage TNBC treated either with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

For example, investigators cited a study published in JCO in 2014, that showed among women with TNBC enrolled in the phase 3 ECOG 2197 clinical trial and the related ECOG 119 clinical trial, after a nearly 11-year follow-up, higher sTIL scores were associated with significantly better prognosis with every 10% increase translating into a 14% reduction in the risk of recurrence or death (P = .02).

“The prognostic importance of sTILs is, however, unexplored in patients diagnosed under age 40 years, let alone in the subgroup of systemic therapy–naive patients,” Dr. Linn and colleagues wrote.
 

Retrospective study

To see whether the prognostic value of sTILs was as strong among young, systemic therapy–naive women, the investigators conducted a retrospective study of women enrolled in the Netherlands Cancer Registry who were diagnosed with node-negative TNBC from 1989 to 2000. The patients selected had undergone only locoregional treatment, including axillary node dissection, but had not received any systemic therapy.

Pathologists reviewed samples, with TILs reported for the stromal compartment. The samples were grouped by sTIL score categories of high (75% or greater), intermediate (30% to less than 75%), or low (less than 30%). The investigators looked at overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) stratified by sTIL scores,

During a median follow-up of 15 years, 107 women died or developed distant metastases, and 78 experienced a second primary cancer.

The results were as noted, with patients in the highest category of sTILs having very low rates of either death or distant metastases during follow-up.

“We confirm the prognostic value of sTILs in young patients with early-stage N0 TNBC who are systemic therapy naive by taking advantage of a prospectively collected population-based cohort. Increasing sTILs are significantly associated with improved OS and DMFS. Patients with high sTILs (> 75%) had an excellent 10-year overall survival and a very low 10-year incidence of distant metastasis or death.

The study was supported by grants from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, A Sister’s Hope, De Vrienden van UMC Utrecht, Agilent Technologies, the Dutch Cancer Society, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Linn reported consulting with and receiving compensation from Daiichi Sankyo, as well as receiving research funding from Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, Merck, Immunomedics, Eurocept Pharmaceuticals, Agendia, and Novartis.

Young women with a new diagnosis of node-negative triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have high levels of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) have a very good long-term prognosis, and may be suitable candidates for reduced intensity pre- or postoperative chemotherapy, according to a team of European investigators.

Among 441 women in a Dutch cancer registry who were younger than 40 when they were diagnosed with node-negative TNBC and had not undergone systemic therapy, those who had 75% or more TILs in the intratumoral stromal area had a 15-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases or death of just 2.1%, and every 10% increase in sTILs was associated with a 19% decrease in the risk of death.

In contrast, the 15-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases was 38.4% for women with stromal TIL scores of less than 30%, according to researchers writing in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“These data could be used as a starting point for designing a randomized controlled chemotherapy de-escalation trial. The current study confirms the importance of sTILs as a valuable addition to the set of standard prognostic factors in patients with TNBC,” wrote the researchers, who were led by Sabine C. Linn, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
 

Markers for immune response

Stromal TILs, a mixture of mononuclear immune cells, have been shown in previous studies to be prognostic for outcomes in patients with early-stage TNBC treated either with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

For example, investigators cited a study published in JCO in 2014, that showed among women with TNBC enrolled in the phase 3 ECOG 2197 clinical trial and the related ECOG 119 clinical trial, after a nearly 11-year follow-up, higher sTIL scores were associated with significantly better prognosis with every 10% increase translating into a 14% reduction in the risk of recurrence or death (P = .02).

“The prognostic importance of sTILs is, however, unexplored in patients diagnosed under age 40 years, let alone in the subgroup of systemic therapy–naive patients,” Dr. Linn and colleagues wrote.
 

Retrospective study

To see whether the prognostic value of sTILs was as strong among young, systemic therapy–naive women, the investigators conducted a retrospective study of women enrolled in the Netherlands Cancer Registry who were diagnosed with node-negative TNBC from 1989 to 2000. The patients selected had undergone only locoregional treatment, including axillary node dissection, but had not received any systemic therapy.

Pathologists reviewed samples, with TILs reported for the stromal compartment. The samples were grouped by sTIL score categories of high (75% or greater), intermediate (30% to less than 75%), or low (less than 30%). The investigators looked at overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) stratified by sTIL scores,

During a median follow-up of 15 years, 107 women died or developed distant metastases, and 78 experienced a second primary cancer.

The results were as noted, with patients in the highest category of sTILs having very low rates of either death or distant metastases during follow-up.

“We confirm the prognostic value of sTILs in young patients with early-stage N0 TNBC who are systemic therapy naive by taking advantage of a prospectively collected population-based cohort. Increasing sTILs are significantly associated with improved OS and DMFS. Patients with high sTILs (> 75%) had an excellent 10-year overall survival and a very low 10-year incidence of distant metastasis or death.

The study was supported by grants from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, A Sister’s Hope, De Vrienden van UMC Utrecht, Agilent Technologies, the Dutch Cancer Society, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Linn reported consulting with and receiving compensation from Daiichi Sankyo, as well as receiving research funding from Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, Merck, Immunomedics, Eurocept Pharmaceuticals, Agendia, and Novartis.

Young women with a new diagnosis of node-negative triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have high levels of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) have a very good long-term prognosis, and may be suitable candidates for reduced intensity pre- or postoperative chemotherapy, according to a team of European investigators.

Among 441 women in a Dutch cancer registry who were younger than 40 when they were diagnosed with node-negative TNBC and had not undergone systemic therapy, those who had 75% or more TILs in the intratumoral stromal area had a 15-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases or death of just 2.1%, and every 10% increase in sTILs was associated with a 19% decrease in the risk of death.

In contrast, the 15-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases was 38.4% for women with stromal TIL scores of less than 30%, according to researchers writing in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“These data could be used as a starting point for designing a randomized controlled chemotherapy de-escalation trial. The current study confirms the importance of sTILs as a valuable addition to the set of standard prognostic factors in patients with TNBC,” wrote the researchers, who were led by Sabine C. Linn, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
 

Markers for immune response

Stromal TILs, a mixture of mononuclear immune cells, have been shown in previous studies to be prognostic for outcomes in patients with early-stage TNBC treated either with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

For example, investigators cited a study published in JCO in 2014, that showed among women with TNBC enrolled in the phase 3 ECOG 2197 clinical trial and the related ECOG 119 clinical trial, after a nearly 11-year follow-up, higher sTIL scores were associated with significantly better prognosis with every 10% increase translating into a 14% reduction in the risk of recurrence or death (P = .02).

“The prognostic importance of sTILs is, however, unexplored in patients diagnosed under age 40 years, let alone in the subgroup of systemic therapy–naive patients,” Dr. Linn and colleagues wrote.
 

Retrospective study

To see whether the prognostic value of sTILs was as strong among young, systemic therapy–naive women, the investigators conducted a retrospective study of women enrolled in the Netherlands Cancer Registry who were diagnosed with node-negative TNBC from 1989 to 2000. The patients selected had undergone only locoregional treatment, including axillary node dissection, but had not received any systemic therapy.

Pathologists reviewed samples, with TILs reported for the stromal compartment. The samples were grouped by sTIL score categories of high (75% or greater), intermediate (30% to less than 75%), or low (less than 30%). The investigators looked at overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) stratified by sTIL scores,

During a median follow-up of 15 years, 107 women died or developed distant metastases, and 78 experienced a second primary cancer.

The results were as noted, with patients in the highest category of sTILs having very low rates of either death or distant metastases during follow-up.

“We confirm the prognostic value of sTILs in young patients with early-stage N0 TNBC who are systemic therapy naive by taking advantage of a prospectively collected population-based cohort. Increasing sTILs are significantly associated with improved OS and DMFS. Patients with high sTILs (> 75%) had an excellent 10-year overall survival and a very low 10-year incidence of distant metastasis or death.

The study was supported by grants from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, A Sister’s Hope, De Vrienden van UMC Utrecht, Agilent Technologies, the Dutch Cancer Society, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Linn reported consulting with and receiving compensation from Daiichi Sankyo, as well as receiving research funding from Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, Merck, Immunomedics, Eurocept Pharmaceuticals, Agendia, and Novartis.

DESTINY-Breast04 is the first randomized clinical trial to show that targeting HER2 provides clinically meaningful benefit for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. This phase 3 study by Modi and colleagues enrolled 557 patients with hormone receptor (HR)–negative or HR-positive breast cancer and centrally confirmed HER2 low expression in those who had been previously treated with one or two prior lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients with HR-positive breast cancer were required to have endocrine therapy–refractory disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either an antibody-drug conjugate, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), or the physician's choice of standard chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel [nab-paclitaxel]). Among all 557 patients, T-DXd improved median progression-free survival (PFS) by 4.8 months (9.9 vs 5.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; P < .001) and median overall survival (OS) by 6.6 months (23.4 vs 16.8 months; HR 0.64; P = .0010) compared with standard single-agent chemotherapy. Among the 494 (88.7%) HR-positive patients, the median PFS was 10.1 months in the T-DXd group and 5.4 months in the chemotherapy group (HR 0.51; P < .001). Median OS was 23.9 months and 17.5 months, respectively (HR 0.64; P = .003). The rates of grade 3 or higher adverse events were lower with T-DXd than with standard chemotherapy (52.6% vs 67.4%, respectively), although higher rates of drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis were noted in the T-DXd arm (12.1% vs 0.1%). Lung toxicity continues to be an important safety concern with T-DXd. These practice-changing results open the door to a new treatment option for a substantial group of patients with HER2-low disease and support the need to reclassify HER2-low as a new targetable subset of breast cancer, distinct from HER-negative (HER2-0), and to acquire an understanding of the clinical characteristics of and prognosis for these patients.

Tarantino and colleagues evaluated the biologic and prognostic significance of HER2-low expression in breast cancer and investigated the association between HR status and HER2-low expression. Among 5235 patients with HER2-0 invasive breast cancer, HR expression was significantly more common among HER2-low tumors than among HER2-0 tumors (90.6% vs 81.8%; P < .001). The rate of HER2-low tumors increased progressively as estrogen receptor (ER) expression increased (40.1% of ER-negative, 46.3% of ER-low, 55.2% of ER-moderate, 57.8% of ER-high, and 62.1% of ER-very high [ie, ER > 95%] tumors; P < .001). Among 675 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rates were seen among those with HER2-0 tumors (26.8% vs 16.6%; P = .002), although no statistically significant differences in pCR rates were noted between HER2-low and HER2-0 tumors when analyzed by HR and ER status. In contrast to the findings of Modi and colleagues, this analysis saw no prognostic significance in terms of survival outcomes for HER2-low expression among patients who had HR-positive or HER2-0 tumors, suggesting that HER2-low breast cancer may not be a distinct biologic subtype. Further studies are needed to clarify whether HER2-low breast cancer needs to be considered separately in practice.

Immunotherapy, particular checkpoint inhibitors, has revolutionized the treatment of many solid tumors. However, their role in HER2-positive breast cancer remains unclear. IMpassion050 is a double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of adding atezolizumab, an anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, to neoadjuvant standard of care (chemotherapy + pertuzumab + trastuzumab [PH]) for high-risk, HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC). In the study by Huober and colleagues, 454 patients with a primary tumor > 2 cm and histologically confirmed positive lymph node status (N1-3) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the atezolizumab or placebo group with dose-dense doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide, followed by paclitaxel and PH. In the adjuvant setting, patients continued atezolizumab or placebo and PH to complete 1 year of HER2-targeted therapy; those with residual disease could switch to trastuzumab emtansine with atezolizumab or placebo. At clinical cutoff (February 5, 2021), rates of pCR in the atezolizumab group vs placebo group were similar among all patients in the study (62.4% vs 62.7%; P = .9551) and in the PD-L1–positive population (64.2% vs 72.5%; P = .1846). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred more frequently in the atezolizumab group compared with the placebo group, both during the neoadjuvant treatment phase (47.3% vs 42.2%) and the adjuvant treatment phase (13.4% vs 9.8%).

In summary, the phase 3 IMpassion050 trial showed no significant improvement in pCR with the addition of atezolizumab to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk, HER2-positive EBC, including those with PD-L1–positive tumors. At this time, PH and chemotherapy remain the standard of care in this patient population. Longer follow-up is needed in respect to the long-term effect of atezolizumab in this setting.

DESTINY-Breast04 is the first randomized clinical trial to show that targeting HER2 provides clinically meaningful benefit for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. This phase 3 study by Modi and colleagues enrolled 557 patients with hormone receptor (HR)–negative or HR-positive breast cancer and centrally confirmed HER2 low expression in those who had been previously treated with one or two prior lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients with HR-positive breast cancer were required to have endocrine therapy–refractory disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either an antibody-drug conjugate, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), or the physician's choice of standard chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel [nab-paclitaxel]). Among all 557 patients, T-DXd improved median progression-free survival (PFS) by 4.8 months (9.9 vs 5.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; P < .001) and median overall survival (OS) by 6.6 months (23.4 vs 16.8 months; HR 0.64; P = .0010) compared with standard single-agent chemotherapy. Among the 494 (88.7%) HR-positive patients, the median PFS was 10.1 months in the T-DXd group and 5.4 months in the chemotherapy group (HR 0.51; P < .001). Median OS was 23.9 months and 17.5 months, respectively (HR 0.64; P = .003). The rates of grade 3 or higher adverse events were lower with T-DXd than with standard chemotherapy (52.6% vs 67.4%, respectively), although higher rates of drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis were noted in the T-DXd arm (12.1% vs 0.1%). Lung toxicity continues to be an important safety concern with T-DXd. These practice-changing results open the door to a new treatment option for a substantial group of patients with HER2-low disease and support the need to reclassify HER2-low as a new targetable subset of breast cancer, distinct from HER-negative (HER2-0), and to acquire an understanding of the clinical characteristics of and prognosis for these patients.

Tarantino and colleagues evaluated the biologic and prognostic significance of HER2-low expression in breast cancer and investigated the association between HR status and HER2-low expression. Among 5235 patients with HER2-0 invasive breast cancer, HR expression was significantly more common among HER2-low tumors than among HER2-0 tumors (90.6% vs 81.8%; P < .001). The rate of HER2-low tumors increased progressively as estrogen receptor (ER) expression increased (40.1% of ER-negative, 46.3% of ER-low, 55.2% of ER-moderate, 57.8% of ER-high, and 62.1% of ER-very high [ie, ER > 95%] tumors; P < .001). Among 675 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rates were seen among those with HER2-0 tumors (26.8% vs 16.6%; P = .002), although no statistically significant differences in pCR rates were noted between HER2-low and HER2-0 tumors when analyzed by HR and ER status. In contrast to the findings of Modi and colleagues, this analysis saw no prognostic significance in terms of survival outcomes for HER2-low expression among patients who had HR-positive or HER2-0 tumors, suggesting that HER2-low breast cancer may not be a distinct biologic subtype. Further studies are needed to clarify whether HER2-low breast cancer needs to be considered separately in practice.

Immunotherapy, particular checkpoint inhibitors, has revolutionized the treatment of many solid tumors. However, their role in HER2-positive breast cancer remains unclear. IMpassion050 is a double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of adding atezolizumab, an anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, to neoadjuvant standard of care (chemotherapy + pertuzumab + trastuzumab [PH]) for high-risk, HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC). In the study by Huober and colleagues, 454 patients with a primary tumor > 2 cm and histologically confirmed positive lymph node status (N1-3) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the atezolizumab or placebo group with dose-dense doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide, followed by paclitaxel and PH. In the adjuvant setting, patients continued atezolizumab or placebo and PH to complete 1 year of HER2-targeted therapy; those with residual disease could switch to trastuzumab emtansine with atezolizumab or placebo. At clinical cutoff (February 5, 2021), rates of pCR in the atezolizumab group vs placebo group were similar among all patients in the study (62.4% vs 62.7%; P = .9551) and in the PD-L1–positive population (64.2% vs 72.5%; P = .1846). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred more frequently in the atezolizumab group compared with the placebo group, both during the neoadjuvant treatment phase (47.3% vs 42.2%) and the adjuvant treatment phase (13.4% vs 9.8%).

In summary, the phase 3 IMpassion050 trial showed no significant improvement in pCR with the addition of atezolizumab to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk, HER2-positive EBC, including those with PD-L1–positive tumors. At this time, PH and chemotherapy remain the standard of care in this patient population. Longer follow-up is needed in respect to the long-term effect of atezolizumab in this setting.

DESTINY-Breast04 is the first randomized clinical trial to show that targeting HER2 provides clinically meaningful benefit for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. This phase 3 study by Modi and colleagues enrolled 557 patients with hormone receptor (HR)–negative or HR-positive breast cancer and centrally confirmed HER2 low expression in those who had been previously treated with one or two prior lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients with HR-positive breast cancer were required to have endocrine therapy–refractory disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either an antibody-drug conjugate, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), or the physician's choice of standard chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel [nab-paclitaxel]). Among all 557 patients, T-DXd improved median progression-free survival (PFS) by 4.8 months (9.9 vs 5.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; P < .001) and median overall survival (OS) by 6.6 months (23.4 vs 16.8 months; HR 0.64; P = .0010) compared with standard single-agent chemotherapy. Among the 494 (88.7%) HR-positive patients, the median PFS was 10.1 months in the T-DXd group and 5.4 months in the chemotherapy group (HR 0.51; P < .001). Median OS was 23.9 months and 17.5 months, respectively (HR 0.64; P = .003). The rates of grade 3 or higher adverse events were lower with T-DXd than with standard chemotherapy (52.6% vs 67.4%, respectively), although higher rates of drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis were noted in the T-DXd arm (12.1% vs 0.1%). Lung toxicity continues to be an important safety concern with T-DXd. These practice-changing results open the door to a new treatment option for a substantial group of patients with HER2-low disease and support the need to reclassify HER2-low as a new targetable subset of breast cancer, distinct from HER-negative (HER2-0), and to acquire an understanding of the clinical characteristics of and prognosis for these patients.

Tarantino and colleagues evaluated the biologic and prognostic significance of HER2-low expression in breast cancer and investigated the association between HR status and HER2-low expression. Among 5235 patients with HER2-0 invasive breast cancer, HR expression was significantly more common among HER2-low tumors than among HER2-0 tumors (90.6% vs 81.8%; P < .001). The rate of HER2-low tumors increased progressively as estrogen receptor (ER) expression increased (40.1% of ER-negative, 46.3% of ER-low, 55.2% of ER-moderate, 57.8% of ER-high, and 62.1% of ER-very high [ie, ER > 95%] tumors; P < .001). Among 675 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rates were seen among those with HER2-0 tumors (26.8% vs 16.6%; P = .002), although no statistically significant differences in pCR rates were noted between HER2-low and HER2-0 tumors when analyzed by HR and ER status. In contrast to the findings of Modi and colleagues, this analysis saw no prognostic significance in terms of survival outcomes for HER2-low expression among patients who had HR-positive or HER2-0 tumors, suggesting that HER2-low breast cancer may not be a distinct biologic subtype. Further studies are needed to clarify whether HER2-low breast cancer needs to be considered separately in practice.

Immunotherapy, particular checkpoint inhibitors, has revolutionized the treatment of many solid tumors. However, their role in HER2-positive breast cancer remains unclear. IMpassion050 is a double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of adding atezolizumab, an anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, to neoadjuvant standard of care (chemotherapy + pertuzumab + trastuzumab [PH]) for high-risk, HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC). In the study by Huober and colleagues, 454 patients with a primary tumor > 2 cm and histologically confirmed positive lymph node status (N1-3) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the atezolizumab or placebo group with dose-dense doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide, followed by paclitaxel and PH. In the adjuvant setting, patients continued atezolizumab or placebo and PH to complete 1 year of HER2-targeted therapy; those with residual disease could switch to trastuzumab emtansine with atezolizumab or placebo. At clinical cutoff (February 5, 2021), rates of pCR in the atezolizumab group vs placebo group were similar among all patients in the study (62.4% vs 62.7%; P = .9551) and in the PD-L1–positive population (64.2% vs 72.5%; P = .1846). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred more frequently in the atezolizumab group compared with the placebo group, both during the neoadjuvant treatment phase (47.3% vs 42.2%) and the adjuvant treatment phase (13.4% vs 9.8%).

In summary, the phase 3 IMpassion050 trial showed no significant improvement in pCR with the addition of atezolizumab to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk, HER2-positive EBC, including those with PD-L1–positive tumors. At this time, PH and chemotherapy remain the standard of care in this patient population. Longer follow-up is needed in respect to the long-term effect of atezolizumab in this setting.

Adding to a growing body of evidence that elevated remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) provides additional and independent risk prediction for major cardiovascular events (MACE), a new analysis has this shown this biomarker has prognostic value specifically in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

In a post hoc analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C was associated with a 7% increased risk in MACE (P = .004) after adjustment for several risk factors including other cholesterol values.

“In type 2 diabetes, remnant-C levels are associated with MACE regardless of LDL-C,” reported a team of investigators led by Liyao Fu, MD, Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China .

Remnant-C is one component of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. Within triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, remnant-C has become a major focus of efforts to explain cardiovascular (CV) residual risk, according to the investigators.

Residual risk is a term used to explain why cardiovascular events occur after all known modifiable factors, such as LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are controlled.

“Our primary findings indicate that baseline estimated remnant-C levels were associated with MACE regardless of clinical phenotypes, lifestyle confounders relative to CV risk, and lipid-lowering treatment,” said the authors of the analysis.

In the post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, which evaluated the effects of intensive glucose lowering in T2D more than 10 years ago, there were data on remnant-C over a median of 8.8 years of follow-up in 9,650 T2D patients. Over this period, 1,815 (17.8%) developed MACE.

Multiple analyses support prognostic value of remnant-C

In addition to the 7% rise in MACE for each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C when calculated as a continuous variable, other analyses told the same story.

This included an assessment by remnant-C tertiles. Not only was there a significant trend (P < .001) for greater risk with each higher baseline tertile of remnant-C, those in the highest tertile had a 38% greater risk of MACE relative to those in the lowest tertile (hazard ratio, 1.38; P < .001) after adjustment for confounders.

The same pattern was seen for several components of MACE, such as CV death and nonfatal myocardial infarction, when remnant-C tertiles were compared.

Visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C over the course of follow-up was also associated with greater risk of MACE. In logarithmic calculations, the risk of MACE climbed about 40% across all three models of risk adjustment. These models included adjustments for different sets of confounders, such as sex, age, blood pressure, CV disease history, and glucose levels. On an unadjusted basis, the risk was increased about 50% (HR, 1.52; P < .001).

For visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C, the greatest effect was on risk of nonfatal MI across models. In model 3, for example, which adjusted for the most confounders, the risk was nearly doubled (HR, 1.92; P < .001). In contrast, there did not appear to be a link between visit-to-visit variability and nonfatal stroke.

In a discordant analysis that was conducted to examine the relative risk of remnant-C independent of LDL-C, those who had a remnant-C level of at least 31 mg/dL were found to have a higher risk of MACE regardless of LDL-C level. Yet, the risk was higher if both remnant-C and LDL-C were elevated. For example, the risk was increased 22% for those with LDL-C at or below 100 mg/dL and remnant-C levels of at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.22; P = .015) but climbed to 37% for those with LDL-C above 100 mg/dL if remnant-C was at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.38; P = .007).
 

Remnant-C shows prognostic value in other risk groups

Although this study suggests an important prognostic value for remnant-C in T2D, there are numerous studies suggesting that it has prognostic value in other risk groups, such as those with a history of CV disease. This includes a study published earlier this year with 10 years of follow-up in 41,928 patients in Denmark. When combined with other risk factors, remnant-C substantially improved the accuracy of risk of events over time.

The investigators from this previous study, like the new study in patients with T2D, predict that remnant-C will be eventually included in guidelines.

According to Shi Tai, MD, a coauthor of the T2D study, remnant-C “may allow for the development of specific preventive and therapeutic approaches” to CV risk in patients with T2D.

T2D patients “with elevated plasma remnant-C levels represent a special population that deserves more attention regarding residual risk,” said Dr. Tai of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Hospital of South Central China.
 

Great interest, but ready for guidelines?

This is an important direction of ongoing research, according to Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“There is a great deal of interest from both clinicians and trialists to find a simple way to identify patients with high residual risk who are on statin therapy,” he said. He thinks remnant-C has promise in this regard.

“Remnant-C is not in current guidelines,” he said in an interview, but he suggested that there is now a substantial body of evidence to suggest that it might be added if validated in further studies.

“Remnant-C is easy to calculate and may be helpful in practice now to identify patients who need more aggressive therapy to reduce risk and may be useful to identify patients for clinical trials who will benefit from new therapies that are in development,” he said.

However, the clinical relevance of therapies addressed at triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in general or their components, including triglycerides or remnant-C, has never been demonstrated, pointed out Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, PhD.

“Higher fasting or nonfasting triglyceride levels or their surrogates have been shown to be associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease events in observational studies, but the importance of such measurements in persons already treated with very aggressive LDL-C lowering therapy is not known,” commented Dr. Wilson, director of epidemiology and genomic medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta.

Dr. Wilson was the coauthor of an editorial that accompanied the previously published Danish study of remnant-C. In his editorial, he suggested that remnant-C has promise for better understanding residual risk, but when contacted about these latest data he emphasized a lack of support so far for clinical relevance.

“Unfortunately, clinical trials have generally not shown that triglyceride lowering [to favorably alter remnant-C] in this situation favorably affects the risk of CV disease events,” he said in an interview. This does not preclude remnant-C as a targetable risk factor, but these data are needed.

Dr. Fu, Dr. Tai, and Dr. Wilson report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ballantyne has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies, including several that produce products employed for the treatment of lipid abnormalities.

Adding to a growing body of evidence that elevated remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) provides additional and independent risk prediction for major cardiovascular events (MACE), a new analysis has this shown this biomarker has prognostic value specifically in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

In a post hoc analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C was associated with a 7% increased risk in MACE (P = .004) after adjustment for several risk factors including other cholesterol values.

“In type 2 diabetes, remnant-C levels are associated with MACE regardless of LDL-C,” reported a team of investigators led by Liyao Fu, MD, Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China .

Remnant-C is one component of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. Within triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, remnant-C has become a major focus of efforts to explain cardiovascular (CV) residual risk, according to the investigators.

Residual risk is a term used to explain why cardiovascular events occur after all known modifiable factors, such as LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are controlled.

“Our primary findings indicate that baseline estimated remnant-C levels were associated with MACE regardless of clinical phenotypes, lifestyle confounders relative to CV risk, and lipid-lowering treatment,” said the authors of the analysis.

In the post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, which evaluated the effects of intensive glucose lowering in T2D more than 10 years ago, there were data on remnant-C over a median of 8.8 years of follow-up in 9,650 T2D patients. Over this period, 1,815 (17.8%) developed MACE.

Multiple analyses support prognostic value of remnant-C

In addition to the 7% rise in MACE for each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C when calculated as a continuous variable, other analyses told the same story.

This included an assessment by remnant-C tertiles. Not only was there a significant trend (P < .001) for greater risk with each higher baseline tertile of remnant-C, those in the highest tertile had a 38% greater risk of MACE relative to those in the lowest tertile (hazard ratio, 1.38; P < .001) after adjustment for confounders.

The same pattern was seen for several components of MACE, such as CV death and nonfatal myocardial infarction, when remnant-C tertiles were compared.

Visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C over the course of follow-up was also associated with greater risk of MACE. In logarithmic calculations, the risk of MACE climbed about 40% across all three models of risk adjustment. These models included adjustments for different sets of confounders, such as sex, age, blood pressure, CV disease history, and glucose levels. On an unadjusted basis, the risk was increased about 50% (HR, 1.52; P < .001).

For visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C, the greatest effect was on risk of nonfatal MI across models. In model 3, for example, which adjusted for the most confounders, the risk was nearly doubled (HR, 1.92; P < .001). In contrast, there did not appear to be a link between visit-to-visit variability and nonfatal stroke.

In a discordant analysis that was conducted to examine the relative risk of remnant-C independent of LDL-C, those who had a remnant-C level of at least 31 mg/dL were found to have a higher risk of MACE regardless of LDL-C level. Yet, the risk was higher if both remnant-C and LDL-C were elevated. For example, the risk was increased 22% for those with LDL-C at or below 100 mg/dL and remnant-C levels of at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.22; P = .015) but climbed to 37% for those with LDL-C above 100 mg/dL if remnant-C was at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.38; P = .007).
 

Remnant-C shows prognostic value in other risk groups

Although this study suggests an important prognostic value for remnant-C in T2D, there are numerous studies suggesting that it has prognostic value in other risk groups, such as those with a history of CV disease. This includes a study published earlier this year with 10 years of follow-up in 41,928 patients in Denmark. When combined with other risk factors, remnant-C substantially improved the accuracy of risk of events over time.

The investigators from this previous study, like the new study in patients with T2D, predict that remnant-C will be eventually included in guidelines.

According to Shi Tai, MD, a coauthor of the T2D study, remnant-C “may allow for the development of specific preventive and therapeutic approaches” to CV risk in patients with T2D.

T2D patients “with elevated plasma remnant-C levels represent a special population that deserves more attention regarding residual risk,” said Dr. Tai of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Hospital of South Central China.
 

Great interest, but ready for guidelines?

This is an important direction of ongoing research, according to Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“There is a great deal of interest from both clinicians and trialists to find a simple way to identify patients with high residual risk who are on statin therapy,” he said. He thinks remnant-C has promise in this regard.

“Remnant-C is not in current guidelines,” he said in an interview, but he suggested that there is now a substantial body of evidence to suggest that it might be added if validated in further studies.

“Remnant-C is easy to calculate and may be helpful in practice now to identify patients who need more aggressive therapy to reduce risk and may be useful to identify patients for clinical trials who will benefit from new therapies that are in development,” he said.

However, the clinical relevance of therapies addressed at triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in general or their components, including triglycerides or remnant-C, has never been demonstrated, pointed out Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, PhD.

“Higher fasting or nonfasting triglyceride levels or their surrogates have been shown to be associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease events in observational studies, but the importance of such measurements in persons already treated with very aggressive LDL-C lowering therapy is not known,” commented Dr. Wilson, director of epidemiology and genomic medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta.

Dr. Wilson was the coauthor of an editorial that accompanied the previously published Danish study of remnant-C. In his editorial, he suggested that remnant-C has promise for better understanding residual risk, but when contacted about these latest data he emphasized a lack of support so far for clinical relevance.

“Unfortunately, clinical trials have generally not shown that triglyceride lowering [to favorably alter remnant-C] in this situation favorably affects the risk of CV disease events,” he said in an interview. This does not preclude remnant-C as a targetable risk factor, but these data are needed.

Dr. Fu, Dr. Tai, and Dr. Wilson report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ballantyne has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies, including several that produce products employed for the treatment of lipid abnormalities.

Adding to a growing body of evidence that elevated remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) provides additional and independent risk prediction for major cardiovascular events (MACE), a new analysis has this shown this biomarker has prognostic value specifically in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

In a post hoc analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C was associated with a 7% increased risk in MACE (P = .004) after adjustment for several risk factors including other cholesterol values.

“In type 2 diabetes, remnant-C levels are associated with MACE regardless of LDL-C,” reported a team of investigators led by Liyao Fu, MD, Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China .

Remnant-C is one component of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. Within triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, remnant-C has become a major focus of efforts to explain cardiovascular (CV) residual risk, according to the investigators.

Residual risk is a term used to explain why cardiovascular events occur after all known modifiable factors, such as LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are controlled.

“Our primary findings indicate that baseline estimated remnant-C levels were associated with MACE regardless of clinical phenotypes, lifestyle confounders relative to CV risk, and lipid-lowering treatment,” said the authors of the analysis.

In the post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, which evaluated the effects of intensive glucose lowering in T2D more than 10 years ago, there were data on remnant-C over a median of 8.8 years of follow-up in 9,650 T2D patients. Over this period, 1,815 (17.8%) developed MACE.

Multiple analyses support prognostic value of remnant-C

In addition to the 7% rise in MACE for each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C when calculated as a continuous variable, other analyses told the same story.

This included an assessment by remnant-C tertiles. Not only was there a significant trend (P < .001) for greater risk with each higher baseline tertile of remnant-C, those in the highest tertile had a 38% greater risk of MACE relative to those in the lowest tertile (hazard ratio, 1.38; P < .001) after adjustment for confounders.

The same pattern was seen for several components of MACE, such as CV death and nonfatal myocardial infarction, when remnant-C tertiles were compared.

Visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C over the course of follow-up was also associated with greater risk of MACE. In logarithmic calculations, the risk of MACE climbed about 40% across all three models of risk adjustment. These models included adjustments for different sets of confounders, such as sex, age, blood pressure, CV disease history, and glucose levels. On an unadjusted basis, the risk was increased about 50% (HR, 1.52; P < .001).

For visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C, the greatest effect was on risk of nonfatal MI across models. In model 3, for example, which adjusted for the most confounders, the risk was nearly doubled (HR, 1.92; P < .001). In contrast, there did not appear to be a link between visit-to-visit variability and nonfatal stroke.

In a discordant analysis that was conducted to examine the relative risk of remnant-C independent of LDL-C, those who had a remnant-C level of at least 31 mg/dL were found to have a higher risk of MACE regardless of LDL-C level. Yet, the risk was higher if both remnant-C and LDL-C were elevated. For example, the risk was increased 22% for those with LDL-C at or below 100 mg/dL and remnant-C levels of at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.22; P = .015) but climbed to 37% for those with LDL-C above 100 mg/dL if remnant-C was at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.38; P = .007).
 

Remnant-C shows prognostic value in other risk groups

Although this study suggests an important prognostic value for remnant-C in T2D, there are numerous studies suggesting that it has prognostic value in other risk groups, such as those with a history of CV disease. This includes a study published earlier this year with 10 years of follow-up in 41,928 patients in Denmark. When combined with other risk factors, remnant-C substantially improved the accuracy of risk of events over time.

The investigators from this previous study, like the new study in patients with T2D, predict that remnant-C will be eventually included in guidelines.

According to Shi Tai, MD, a coauthor of the T2D study, remnant-C “may allow for the development of specific preventive and therapeutic approaches” to CV risk in patients with T2D.

T2D patients “with elevated plasma remnant-C levels represent a special population that deserves more attention regarding residual risk,” said Dr. Tai of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Hospital of South Central China.
 

Great interest, but ready for guidelines?

This is an important direction of ongoing research, according to Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“There is a great deal of interest from both clinicians and trialists to find a simple way to identify patients with high residual risk who are on statin therapy,” he said. He thinks remnant-C has promise in this regard.

“Remnant-C is not in current guidelines,” he said in an interview, but he suggested that there is now a substantial body of evidence to suggest that it might be added if validated in further studies.

“Remnant-C is easy to calculate and may be helpful in practice now to identify patients who need more aggressive therapy to reduce risk and may be useful to identify patients for clinical trials who will benefit from new therapies that are in development,” he said.

However, the clinical relevance of therapies addressed at triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in general or their components, including triglycerides or remnant-C, has never been demonstrated, pointed out Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, PhD.

“Higher fasting or nonfasting triglyceride levels or their surrogates have been shown to be associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease events in observational studies, but the importance of such measurements in persons already treated with very aggressive LDL-C lowering therapy is not known,” commented Dr. Wilson, director of epidemiology and genomic medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta.

Dr. Wilson was the coauthor of an editorial that accompanied the previously published Danish study of remnant-C. In his editorial, he suggested that remnant-C has promise for better understanding residual risk, but when contacted about these latest data he emphasized a lack of support so far for clinical relevance.

“Unfortunately, clinical trials have generally not shown that triglyceride lowering [to favorably alter remnant-C] in this situation favorably affects the risk of CV disease events,” he said in an interview. This does not preclude remnant-C as a targetable risk factor, but these data are needed.

Dr. Fu, Dr. Tai, and Dr. Wilson report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ballantyne has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies, including several that produce products employed for the treatment of lipid abnormalities.

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes who had health coverage through a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist significantly less often than patients with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare coverage in 2014-2019, according to a study of more than 411,000 patients.

“MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly poorer intermediate health outcomes and were less likely to be treated with newer evidence-based antihyperglycemic therapies, compared with Medicare FFS beneficiaries,” concluded Utibe R. Essien, MD, and coauthors in a study published in Diabetes Care.

The report comes as the U.S. Congress is looking closely at the MA program and evidence that insurance companies that provide these policies sometimes impose inappropriate barriers on enrolled beneficiaries by denying or limiting access to treatments and interventions in ways that run counter to Medicare’s coverage policies.

According to Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who chaired a hearing on MA plans on June 28 by the House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, beneficiaries who are covered through an MA plan “do not always get the care that they are entitled to.”

The study by Dr. Essien and colleagues also documents some positives of care delivered through MA plans for patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with what FFS Medicare beneficiaries generally receive, such as significantly higher rates of screening for nephropathy and ophthalmologic disorders, and foot examinations.

But the apparently dampened use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists among MA beneficiaries stand out as notable shortcomings, Dr. Essien maintained.
 

Cost containment may limit use

“The differences in health outcomes and in treatments in MA plans are important to highlight,” Dr. Essien said in an interview. “We worry that the cost-containment challenges [associated with MA plans] may be limiting use of these newer treatments.”

The study was based on 2014-2019 data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry, which collects information from more than 5,000 U.S. clinicians whose practices include patients with diabetes, as well as claims data recorded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during 2014-2017.

The main analysis focused on 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, which included 34% with MA coverage and 66% with FFS coverage. The two subgroups had similar ages, about 75 years old, and roughly half were women in both subgroups. The rate at which both subgroups received statin treatment was nearly the same: 72% for those with MA coverage and 71% for those with FFS Medicare.

But MA beneficiaries differed from those with FFS coverage in several other ways. MA beneficiaries had a higher prevalence of Medicaid eligibility than the FFS group (20% vs 12%) and lower rates of consultations with cardiologists (41% vs. 45%) or endocrinologists (7% vs. 10%).

Some of the positive differences in the care received by MA beneficiaries, compared with FFS beneficiaries, after adjustment for potential clinical and sociodemographic confounders, included:

• Screening for nephropathy, at a significant 14% higher relative rate.
• Screening for ophthalmologic disorders, at a significant 8% higher relative rate.
• Undergoing a diabetic foot examination, at a significant 13% higher relative rate.
• Receiving smoking-cessation counseling, at a significant 5% higher relative rate.
• Receiving treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (87% vs. 81%).
• More consistently receiving treatment with metformin, with rates of 72% versus 69% in 2017.

However, these positive differences were accompanied by these relative shortcomings for those with MA, compared with FFS coverage:

• Lower rates of treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor (5.4% vs. 6.7%), a significant 9% relative difference after adjustment.
• Lower rates of treatment with a GLP-1 agonist (6.9% vs. 9.0%), a significant 20% relative difference after adjustment.
• Higher average levels of LDL cholesterol (81.5 vs. 78.9 mg/dL), a significantly higher average hemoglobin A1c level (7.1% vs. 7.0%), and a trend toward a lower prevalence of blood pressure control (70.3% vs. 71.5%).

Researchers also highlight that the lower rate at which people with MA coverage received SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists was consistent in patients with established cardiovascular or kidney disease, for whom these agents are particularly recommended.

In addition, a secondary analysis of data for another 65,000 Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 and 2019 showed the disparity in use of agents from these two drug classes continued.
 

Low systemic use of SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists

Dr. Essien acknowledged that, even in people with FFS Medicare coverage, use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists was low, but the difference between those with MA coverage is “important.”

Researchers offered four factors that might drive reduced prescribing of agents from these two classes for patients with type 2 diabetes with MA coverage: cost-containment strategies put in place by MA plans; the lower rate of consultations with specialists (cardiologists and endocrinologists); possible exclusion of clinicians from MA provider networks who tend to prescribe these higher-price agents; and lower household incomes of people with MA plans, which may lead to cost-related nonadherence.

Most SGLT2 inhibitors have an average retail cost of about $6,000/year, and some GLP-1 agonists cost more than $10,000/year.

In general, MA coverage includes more oversight of care and its cost than occurs with FFS coverage, noted Dr. Essien, an internal medicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh and a researcher at the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.

“Incentives for using these more expensive treatments may not be there in MA plans,” he explained. Overcoming cost-related barriers is a challenge that will require “bold policy changes,” as well as better education of clinicians so they make correct treatment decisions, and of patients to resolve possible concerns about treatment safety.

Rep. DeGette hinted during her remarks at the June hearing that policy changes may be coming from Congress.

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to get coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” she said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Essien reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes who had health coverage through a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist significantly less often than patients with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare coverage in 2014-2019, according to a study of more than 411,000 patients.

“MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly poorer intermediate health outcomes and were less likely to be treated with newer evidence-based antihyperglycemic therapies, compared with Medicare FFS beneficiaries,” concluded Utibe R. Essien, MD, and coauthors in a study published in Diabetes Care.

The report comes as the U.S. Congress is looking closely at the MA program and evidence that insurance companies that provide these policies sometimes impose inappropriate barriers on enrolled beneficiaries by denying or limiting access to treatments and interventions in ways that run counter to Medicare’s coverage policies.

According to Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who chaired a hearing on MA plans on June 28 by the House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, beneficiaries who are covered through an MA plan “do not always get the care that they are entitled to.”

The study by Dr. Essien and colleagues also documents some positives of care delivered through MA plans for patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with what FFS Medicare beneficiaries generally receive, such as significantly higher rates of screening for nephropathy and ophthalmologic disorders, and foot examinations.

But the apparently dampened use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists among MA beneficiaries stand out as notable shortcomings, Dr. Essien maintained.
 

Cost containment may limit use

“The differences in health outcomes and in treatments in MA plans are important to highlight,” Dr. Essien said in an interview. “We worry that the cost-containment challenges [associated with MA plans] may be limiting use of these newer treatments.”

The study was based on 2014-2019 data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry, which collects information from more than 5,000 U.S. clinicians whose practices include patients with diabetes, as well as claims data recorded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during 2014-2017.

The main analysis focused on 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, which included 34% with MA coverage and 66% with FFS coverage. The two subgroups had similar ages, about 75 years old, and roughly half were women in both subgroups. The rate at which both subgroups received statin treatment was nearly the same: 72% for those with MA coverage and 71% for those with FFS Medicare.

But MA beneficiaries differed from those with FFS coverage in several other ways. MA beneficiaries had a higher prevalence of Medicaid eligibility than the FFS group (20% vs 12%) and lower rates of consultations with cardiologists (41% vs. 45%) or endocrinologists (7% vs. 10%).

Some of the positive differences in the care received by MA beneficiaries, compared with FFS beneficiaries, after adjustment for potential clinical and sociodemographic confounders, included:

• Screening for nephropathy, at a significant 14% higher relative rate.
• Screening for ophthalmologic disorders, at a significant 8% higher relative rate.
• Undergoing a diabetic foot examination, at a significant 13% higher relative rate.
• Receiving smoking-cessation counseling, at a significant 5% higher relative rate.
• Receiving treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (87% vs. 81%).
• More consistently receiving treatment with metformin, with rates of 72% versus 69% in 2017.

However, these positive differences were accompanied by these relative shortcomings for those with MA, compared with FFS coverage:

• Lower rates of treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor (5.4% vs. 6.7%), a significant 9% relative difference after adjustment.
• Lower rates of treatment with a GLP-1 agonist (6.9% vs. 9.0%), a significant 20% relative difference after adjustment.
• Higher average levels of LDL cholesterol (81.5 vs. 78.9 mg/dL), a significantly higher average hemoglobin A1c level (7.1% vs. 7.0%), and a trend toward a lower prevalence of blood pressure control (70.3% vs. 71.5%).

Researchers also highlight that the lower rate at which people with MA coverage received SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists was consistent in patients with established cardiovascular or kidney disease, for whom these agents are particularly recommended.

In addition, a secondary analysis of data for another 65,000 Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 and 2019 showed the disparity in use of agents from these two drug classes continued.
 

Low systemic use of SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists

Dr. Essien acknowledged that, even in people with FFS Medicare coverage, use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists was low, but the difference between those with MA coverage is “important.”

Researchers offered four factors that might drive reduced prescribing of agents from these two classes for patients with type 2 diabetes with MA coverage: cost-containment strategies put in place by MA plans; the lower rate of consultations with specialists (cardiologists and endocrinologists); possible exclusion of clinicians from MA provider networks who tend to prescribe these higher-price agents; and lower household incomes of people with MA plans, which may lead to cost-related nonadherence.

Most SGLT2 inhibitors have an average retail cost of about $6,000/year, and some GLP-1 agonists cost more than $10,000/year.

In general, MA coverage includes more oversight of care and its cost than occurs with FFS coverage, noted Dr. Essien, an internal medicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh and a researcher at the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.

“Incentives for using these more expensive treatments may not be there in MA plans,” he explained. Overcoming cost-related barriers is a challenge that will require “bold policy changes,” as well as better education of clinicians so they make correct treatment decisions, and of patients to resolve possible concerns about treatment safety.

Rep. DeGette hinted during her remarks at the June hearing that policy changes may be coming from Congress.

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to get coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” she said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Essien reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes who had health coverage through a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist significantly less often than patients with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare coverage in 2014-2019, according to a study of more than 411,000 patients.

“MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly poorer intermediate health outcomes and were less likely to be treated with newer evidence-based antihyperglycemic therapies, compared with Medicare FFS beneficiaries,” concluded Utibe R. Essien, MD, and coauthors in a study published in Diabetes Care.

The report comes as the U.S. Congress is looking closely at the MA program and evidence that insurance companies that provide these policies sometimes impose inappropriate barriers on enrolled beneficiaries by denying or limiting access to treatments and interventions in ways that run counter to Medicare’s coverage policies.

According to Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who chaired a hearing on MA plans on June 28 by the House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, beneficiaries who are covered through an MA plan “do not always get the care that they are entitled to.”

The study by Dr. Essien and colleagues also documents some positives of care delivered through MA plans for patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with what FFS Medicare beneficiaries generally receive, such as significantly higher rates of screening for nephropathy and ophthalmologic disorders, and foot examinations.

But the apparently dampened use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists among MA beneficiaries stand out as notable shortcomings, Dr. Essien maintained.
 

Cost containment may limit use

“The differences in health outcomes and in treatments in MA plans are important to highlight,” Dr. Essien said in an interview. “We worry that the cost-containment challenges [associated with MA plans] may be limiting use of these newer treatments.”

The study was based on 2014-2019 data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry, which collects information from more than 5,000 U.S. clinicians whose practices include patients with diabetes, as well as claims data recorded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during 2014-2017.

The main analysis focused on 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, which included 34% with MA coverage and 66% with FFS coverage. The two subgroups had similar ages, about 75 years old, and roughly half were women in both subgroups. The rate at which both subgroups received statin treatment was nearly the same: 72% for those with MA coverage and 71% for those with FFS Medicare.

But MA beneficiaries differed from those with FFS coverage in several other ways. MA beneficiaries had a higher prevalence of Medicaid eligibility than the FFS group (20% vs 12%) and lower rates of consultations with cardiologists (41% vs. 45%) or endocrinologists (7% vs. 10%).

Some of the positive differences in the care received by MA beneficiaries, compared with FFS beneficiaries, after adjustment for potential clinical and sociodemographic confounders, included:

• Screening for nephropathy, at a significant 14% higher relative rate.
• Screening for ophthalmologic disorders, at a significant 8% higher relative rate.
• Undergoing a diabetic foot examination, at a significant 13% higher relative rate.
• Receiving smoking-cessation counseling, at a significant 5% higher relative rate.
• Receiving treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (87% vs. 81%).
• More consistently receiving treatment with metformin, with rates of 72% versus 69% in 2017.

However, these positive differences were accompanied by these relative shortcomings for those with MA, compared with FFS coverage:

• Lower rates of treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor (5.4% vs. 6.7%), a significant 9% relative difference after adjustment.
• Lower rates of treatment with a GLP-1 agonist (6.9% vs. 9.0%), a significant 20% relative difference after adjustment.
• Higher average levels of LDL cholesterol (81.5 vs. 78.9 mg/dL), a significantly higher average hemoglobin A1c level (7.1% vs. 7.0%), and a trend toward a lower prevalence of blood pressure control (70.3% vs. 71.5%).

Researchers also highlight that the lower rate at which people with MA coverage received SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists was consistent in patients with established cardiovascular or kidney disease, for whom these agents are particularly recommended.

In addition, a secondary analysis of data for another 65,000 Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 and 2019 showed the disparity in use of agents from these two drug classes continued.
 

Low systemic use of SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists

Dr. Essien acknowledged that, even in people with FFS Medicare coverage, use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists was low, but the difference between those with MA coverage is “important.”

Researchers offered four factors that might drive reduced prescribing of agents from these two classes for patients with type 2 diabetes with MA coverage: cost-containment strategies put in place by MA plans; the lower rate of consultations with specialists (cardiologists and endocrinologists); possible exclusion of clinicians from MA provider networks who tend to prescribe these higher-price agents; and lower household incomes of people with MA plans, which may lead to cost-related nonadherence.

Most SGLT2 inhibitors have an average retail cost of about $6,000/year, and some GLP-1 agonists cost more than $10,000/year.

In general, MA coverage includes more oversight of care and its cost than occurs with FFS coverage, noted Dr. Essien, an internal medicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh and a researcher at the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.

“Incentives for using these more expensive treatments may not be there in MA plans,” he explained. Overcoming cost-related barriers is a challenge that will require “bold policy changes,” as well as better education of clinicians so they make correct treatment decisions, and of patients to resolve possible concerns about treatment safety.

Rep. DeGette hinted during her remarks at the June hearing that policy changes may be coming from Congress.

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to get coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” she said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Essien reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Key clinical point: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-low breast cancer (BC) cannot be considered a distinct biologic subtype of BC because most of its clinicopathologic and prognostic differences are associated with hormone receptor (HR) expression.

Major finding: HR expression was a significant factor associated with the ERBB2 status (adjusted odds ratio for HR-positive vs HR-negative tumors 2.1; P < .001). The pathologic complete response rate was similar in ERBB2-low and ERBB2-0 tumors among patients with HR-positive (P  =  .08) or triple-negative (P  =  .40) BC.

Study details: Findings are from a large cohort study including 5235 patients with ERBB2-negative invasive, stage I-III BC, of which 55.7% and 44.3% of patients had ERBB2-low and ERBB2-0 tumors, respectively.

Disclosures: Dr. Tarantino was supported by an American-Italian Cancer Foundation postdoctoral research fellowship. The authors declared serving on advisory boards of or receiving personal fees, research grants, consulting fees, or honoraria from several sources.

Source: Tarantino P et al. Prognostic and biologic significance of ERBB2-low expression in early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.2286

Key clinical point: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-low breast cancer (BC) cannot be considered a distinct biologic subtype of BC because most of its clinicopathologic and prognostic differences are associated with hormone receptor (HR) expression.

Major finding: HR expression was a significant factor associated with the ERBB2 status (adjusted odds ratio for HR-positive vs HR-negative tumors 2.1; P < .001). The pathologic complete response rate was similar in ERBB2-low and ERBB2-0 tumors among patients with HR-positive (P  =  .08) or triple-negative (P  =  .40) BC.

Study details: Findings are from a large cohort study including 5235 patients with ERBB2-negative invasive, stage I-III BC, of which 55.7% and 44.3% of patients had ERBB2-low and ERBB2-0 tumors, respectively.

Disclosures: Dr. Tarantino was supported by an American-Italian Cancer Foundation postdoctoral research fellowship. The authors declared serving on advisory boards of or receiving personal fees, research grants, consulting fees, or honoraria from several sources.

Source: Tarantino P et al. Prognostic and biologic significance of ERBB2-low expression in early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.2286

Key clinical point: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-low breast cancer (BC) cannot be considered a distinct biologic subtype of BC because most of its clinicopathologic and prognostic differences are associated with hormone receptor (HR) expression.

Major finding: HR expression was a significant factor associated with the ERBB2 status (adjusted odds ratio for HR-positive vs HR-negative tumors 2.1; P < .001). The pathologic complete response rate was similar in ERBB2-low and ERBB2-0 tumors among patients with HR-positive (P  =  .08) or triple-negative (P  =  .40) BC.

Study details: Findings are from a large cohort study including 5235 patients with ERBB2-negative invasive, stage I-III BC, of which 55.7% and 44.3% of patients had ERBB2-low and ERBB2-0 tumors, respectively.

Disclosures: Dr. Tarantino was supported by an American-Italian Cancer Foundation postdoctoral research fellowship. The authors declared serving on advisory boards of or receiving personal fees, research grants, consulting fees, or honoraria from several sources.

Source: Tarantino P et al. Prognostic and biologic significance of ERBB2-low expression in early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.2286

Key clinical point: The use of β-blocker at the time of breast cancer (BC) diagnosis reduced mortality in patients with triple-negative BC (TNBC).

Major finding: Although β-blocker use vs no use was not associated with BC-specific survival in the overall population, β-blockers reduced BC mortality by 34% in patients with TNBC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.47-0.91). The meta-analysis further confirmed that β-blocker use was associated with progression/recurrence-free survival (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.89) in the TNBC population.

Study details: Findings are from a large population-based cohort study including 30,060 women aged ≥ 50 years with primary invasive BC, of which 15% used β-blockers at the time of BC diagnosis, and from a meta-analysis of 8 observational studies.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council and other sources. EK Sloan declared serving as a scientific advisory board member for Cygnal Therapeutics.

Source: Løfling LL et al. β-blockers and breast cancer survival by molecular subtypes: A population-based cohort study and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2022 (Jun 20). Doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01891-7

Key clinical point: The use of β-blocker at the time of breast cancer (BC) diagnosis reduced mortality in patients with triple-negative BC (TNBC).

Major finding: Although β-blocker use vs no use was not associated with BC-specific survival in the overall population, β-blockers reduced BC mortality by 34% in patients with TNBC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.47-0.91). The meta-analysis further confirmed that β-blocker use was associated with progression/recurrence-free survival (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.89) in the TNBC population.

Study details: Findings are from a large population-based cohort study including 30,060 women aged ≥ 50 years with primary invasive BC, of which 15% used β-blockers at the time of BC diagnosis, and from a meta-analysis of 8 observational studies.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council and other sources. EK Sloan declared serving as a scientific advisory board member for Cygnal Therapeutics.

Source: Løfling LL et al. β-blockers and breast cancer survival by molecular subtypes: A population-based cohort study and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2022 (Jun 20). Doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01891-7

Key clinical point: The use of β-blocker at the time of breast cancer (BC) diagnosis reduced mortality in patients with triple-negative BC (TNBC).

Major finding: Although β-blocker use vs no use was not associated with BC-specific survival in the overall population, β-blockers reduced BC mortality by 34% in patients with TNBC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.47-0.91). The meta-analysis further confirmed that β-blocker use was associated with progression/recurrence-free survival (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.89) in the TNBC population.

Study details: Findings are from a large population-based cohort study including 30,060 women aged ≥ 50 years with primary invasive BC, of which 15% used β-blockers at the time of BC diagnosis, and from a meta-analysis of 8 observational studies.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council and other sources. EK Sloan declared serving as a scientific advisory board member for Cygnal Therapeutics.

Source: Løfling LL et al. β-blockers and breast cancer survival by molecular subtypes: A population-based cohort study and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2022 (Jun 20). Doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01891-7

Key clinical point: In patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), capecitabine improved survival and demonstrated a tolerable safety profile, with lower dosage, higher frequency, and adjuvant setting being related with better survival outcomes.

Major finding: Capecitabine vs chemotherapy without capecitabine improved disease-free survival (DFS; hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; P < .001) and overall survival (HR 0.73; P < .0001). A lower dose (<1000 mg; HR 0.69; P  =  .002), a higher dosage frequency (≥6 cycles; HR 0.72; P < .0001) and an adjuvant setting (HR 0.74; P < .0001) were associated with a higher DFS. Capecitabine was associated with higher risk for diarrhea (P < .0001), hand-foot syndrome (P < .0001), and leukopenia (P < .01).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 11 phase 3 randomized controlled trials including 5175 female patients with early-stage TNBC who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy with or without capecitabine.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xun X et al. Efficacy and safety of capecitabine for triple-negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12:899423 (Jul 7). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.899423

Key clinical point: In patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), capecitabine improved survival and demonstrated a tolerable safety profile, with lower dosage, higher frequency, and adjuvant setting being related with better survival outcomes.

Major finding: Capecitabine vs chemotherapy without capecitabine improved disease-free survival (DFS; hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; P < .001) and overall survival (HR 0.73; P < .0001). A lower dose (<1000 mg; HR 0.69; P  =  .002), a higher dosage frequency (≥6 cycles; HR 0.72; P < .0001) and an adjuvant setting (HR 0.74; P < .0001) were associated with a higher DFS. Capecitabine was associated with higher risk for diarrhea (P < .0001), hand-foot syndrome (P < .0001), and leukopenia (P < .01).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 11 phase 3 randomized controlled trials including 5175 female patients with early-stage TNBC who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy with or without capecitabine.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xun X et al. Efficacy and safety of capecitabine for triple-negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12:899423 (Jul 7). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.899423

Key clinical point: In patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), capecitabine improved survival and demonstrated a tolerable safety profile, with lower dosage, higher frequency, and adjuvant setting being related with better survival outcomes.

Major finding: Capecitabine vs chemotherapy without capecitabine improved disease-free survival (DFS; hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; P < .001) and overall survival (HR 0.73; P < .0001). A lower dose (<1000 mg; HR 0.69; P  =  .002), a higher dosage frequency (≥6 cycles; HR 0.72; P < .0001) and an adjuvant setting (HR 0.74; P < .0001) were associated with a higher DFS. Capecitabine was associated with higher risk for diarrhea (P < .0001), hand-foot syndrome (P < .0001), and leukopenia (P < .01).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 11 phase 3 randomized controlled trials including 5175 female patients with early-stage TNBC who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy with or without capecitabine.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xun X et al. Efficacy and safety of capecitabine for triple-negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12:899423 (Jul 7). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.899423