AVAHO

TOPLINE: More than 28% of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with colorectal cancer were diagnosed through emergency presentations, which were associated with a higher mortality risk. Emergency presentations increased during COVID-19 from prepandemic rates.

METHODOLOGY:

•       A retrospective cohort study analyzed 9096 incident colorectal cancer cancer cases diagnosed in the Veterans Health Administration from 2017 to 2021.
•       Researchers applied a validated algorithm to identify emergency presentations, defined as cancer diagnoses within 30 days following emergency care episodes or unplanned hospital admissions.
•       Analysis utilized multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between emergency presentations and cancer stage, treatment, and mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

•      Patients with emergency presentations were more likely to have advanced stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.88) compared to those without emergency presentations.
•      Emergency presentations were associated with lower likelihood of receiving cancer treatment (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75) and higher mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.56-1.84).
•      The proportion of emergency presentations increased from 26.4% in 2017-2019 to 31.4% during the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020-2021 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE: " Our findings from one of the largest studies within a US population to examine emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer show that emergency presentations are common and an important negative predictor of cancer outcomes…Our study findings highlight the need for continued research and implementation efforts focused on measurement and mitigation of emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.”

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online on December 11 in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS: The study's findings are limited by the predominantly male veteran population with lower socioeconomic status, which may affect generalizability. The equal access health care model used by the VA and its and strong screening programs may result in emergency presentation rates that differ from the private sector.

TOPLINE: More than 28% of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with colorectal cancer were diagnosed through emergency presentations, which were associated with a higher mortality risk. Emergency presentations increased during COVID-19 from prepandemic rates.

METHODOLOGY:

•       A retrospective cohort study analyzed 9096 incident colorectal cancer cancer cases diagnosed in the Veterans Health Administration from 2017 to 2021.
•       Researchers applied a validated algorithm to identify emergency presentations, defined as cancer diagnoses within 30 days following emergency care episodes or unplanned hospital admissions.
•       Analysis utilized multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between emergency presentations and cancer stage, treatment, and mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

•      Patients with emergency presentations were more likely to have advanced stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.88) compared to those without emergency presentations.
•      Emergency presentations were associated with lower likelihood of receiving cancer treatment (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75) and higher mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.56-1.84).
•      The proportion of emergency presentations increased from 26.4% in 2017-2019 to 31.4% during the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020-2021 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE: " Our findings from one of the largest studies within a US population to examine emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer show that emergency presentations are common and an important negative predictor of cancer outcomes…Our study findings highlight the need for continued research and implementation efforts focused on measurement and mitigation of emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.”

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online on December 11 in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS: The study's findings are limited by the predominantly male veteran population with lower socioeconomic status, which may affect generalizability. The equal access health care model used by the VA and its and strong screening programs may result in emergency presentation rates that differ from the private sector.

TOPLINE: More than 28% of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with colorectal cancer were diagnosed through emergency presentations, which were associated with a higher mortality risk. Emergency presentations increased during COVID-19 from prepandemic rates.

METHODOLOGY:

•       A retrospective cohort study analyzed 9096 incident colorectal cancer cancer cases diagnosed in the Veterans Health Administration from 2017 to 2021.
•       Researchers applied a validated algorithm to identify emergency presentations, defined as cancer diagnoses within 30 days following emergency care episodes or unplanned hospital admissions.
•       Analysis utilized multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between emergency presentations and cancer stage, treatment, and mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

•      Patients with emergency presentations were more likely to have advanced stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.88) compared to those without emergency presentations.
•      Emergency presentations were associated with lower likelihood of receiving cancer treatment (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75) and higher mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.56-1.84).
•      The proportion of emergency presentations increased from 26.4% in 2017-2019 to 31.4% during the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020-2021 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE: " Our findings from one of the largest studies within a US population to examine emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer show that emergency presentations are common and an important negative predictor of cancer outcomes…Our study findings highlight the need for continued research and implementation efforts focused on measurement and mitigation of emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.”

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online on December 11 in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS: The study's findings are limited by the predominantly male veteran population with lower socioeconomic status, which may affect generalizability. The equal access health care model used by the VA and its and strong screening programs may result in emergency presentation rates that differ from the private sector.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen Inc.) with panitumumab (Vectibix, Amgen Inc.) for the treatment of certain adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Specifically, the combination therapy is indicated for those with KRAS G12C-mutated mCRC, as determined using an FDA-approved test, who have received prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, according to the FDA notice. The FDA also approved the therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR Kit (QIAGEN GmbH) as a companion diagnostic device for identifying eligible patients.

Approval of sotorasib with panitumumab was based on findings from the randomized, open-label, controlled CodeBreaK 300 trial showing improved overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) with sotorasib and panitumumab vs investigator’s choice of trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib, which are current standard-of-care options.

Median PFS was 5.6 months in 53 patients randomized to receive 960 mg of oral sotorasib once daily plus 6 mg/kg of intravenous (IV) panitumumab every 2 weeks, and 2 months in 54 patients randomized to receive standard-of-care therapy (hazard ratio, 0.48). The ORR was 26% vs 0% in the arms, respectively, and the duration of response in the sotorasib/panitumumab arm was 4.4 months. No significant difference in PFS was observed between the standard-of-care arm and a third arm with 53 patients who received 240 mg of oral sotorasib daily plus 6 mg/kg of IV panitumumab every 2 weeks.

Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly between the treatment arms in the final analysis, but the study was not statistically powered for OS.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving sotorasib/panitumumab were rash, dry skin, diarrhea, stomatitis, fatigue, and musculoskeletal pain. Common grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities, which occurred in two or more patients, included decreased magnesium, decreased potassium, decreased corrected calcium, and increased potassium.

The recommended dose of sotorasib is 960 mg given orally once daily and administered before the first panitumumab infusion. The recommended panitumumab dose is 6 mg/kg as an IV infusion every 14 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or until sotorasib is withheld or discontinued, according to the full prescribing information.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen Inc.) with panitumumab (Vectibix, Amgen Inc.) for the treatment of certain adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Specifically, the combination therapy is indicated for those with KRAS G12C-mutated mCRC, as determined using an FDA-approved test, who have received prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, according to the FDA notice. The FDA also approved the therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR Kit (QIAGEN GmbH) as a companion diagnostic device for identifying eligible patients.

Approval of sotorasib with panitumumab was based on findings from the randomized, open-label, controlled CodeBreaK 300 trial showing improved overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) with sotorasib and panitumumab vs investigator’s choice of trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib, which are current standard-of-care options.

Median PFS was 5.6 months in 53 patients randomized to receive 960 mg of oral sotorasib once daily plus 6 mg/kg of intravenous (IV) panitumumab every 2 weeks, and 2 months in 54 patients randomized to receive standard-of-care therapy (hazard ratio, 0.48). The ORR was 26% vs 0% in the arms, respectively, and the duration of response in the sotorasib/panitumumab arm was 4.4 months. No significant difference in PFS was observed between the standard-of-care arm and a third arm with 53 patients who received 240 mg of oral sotorasib daily plus 6 mg/kg of IV panitumumab every 2 weeks.

Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly between the treatment arms in the final analysis, but the study was not statistically powered for OS.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving sotorasib/panitumumab were rash, dry skin, diarrhea, stomatitis, fatigue, and musculoskeletal pain. Common grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities, which occurred in two or more patients, included decreased magnesium, decreased potassium, decreased corrected calcium, and increased potassium.

The recommended dose of sotorasib is 960 mg given orally once daily and administered before the first panitumumab infusion. The recommended panitumumab dose is 6 mg/kg as an IV infusion every 14 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or until sotorasib is withheld or discontinued, according to the full prescribing information.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen Inc.) with panitumumab (Vectibix, Amgen Inc.) for the treatment of certain adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Specifically, the combination therapy is indicated for those with KRAS G12C-mutated mCRC, as determined using an FDA-approved test, who have received prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, according to the FDA notice. The FDA also approved the therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR Kit (QIAGEN GmbH) as a companion diagnostic device for identifying eligible patients.

Approval of sotorasib with panitumumab was based on findings from the randomized, open-label, controlled CodeBreaK 300 trial showing improved overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) with sotorasib and panitumumab vs investigator’s choice of trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib, which are current standard-of-care options.

Median PFS was 5.6 months in 53 patients randomized to receive 960 mg of oral sotorasib once daily plus 6 mg/kg of intravenous (IV) panitumumab every 2 weeks, and 2 months in 54 patients randomized to receive standard-of-care therapy (hazard ratio, 0.48). The ORR was 26% vs 0% in the arms, respectively, and the duration of response in the sotorasib/panitumumab arm was 4.4 months. No significant difference in PFS was observed between the standard-of-care arm and a third arm with 53 patients who received 240 mg of oral sotorasib daily plus 6 mg/kg of IV panitumumab every 2 weeks.

Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly between the treatment arms in the final analysis, but the study was not statistically powered for OS.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving sotorasib/panitumumab were rash, dry skin, diarrhea, stomatitis, fatigue, and musculoskeletal pain. Common grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities, which occurred in two or more patients, included decreased magnesium, decreased potassium, decreased corrected calcium, and increased potassium.

The recommended dose of sotorasib is 960 mg given orally once daily and administered before the first panitumumab infusion. The recommended panitumumab dose is 6 mg/kg as an IV infusion every 14 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or until sotorasib is withheld or discontinued, according to the full prescribing information.

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

TOPLINE:

Physical activity before stage I cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced risk for disease progression and mortality. Members engaging in at least 60 minutes of weekly physical activity showed a 27% lower risk for progression and 47% lower risk for mortality compared with inactive individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Physical activity plays a significant role in reducing cancer mortality with high levels having been associated with an 18% reduction in cancer-specific mortality compared with lower levels in patients with pre- and/or post-diagnosed cancer.
• The new analysis included 28,248 members with stage I cancers enrolled in an oncology programme in South Africa, with physical activity recorded through fitness devices, logged gym sessions, and participation in organized events.
• Participants were categorized into three groups: No physical activity (0 min/wk), low physical activity (< 60 min/wk), and moderate to high physical activity (≥ 60 min/wk) based on activity levels 12 months before diagnosis.
• Researchers measured outcomes including time to progression, time to death, and all-cause mortality, with a follow-up period ranging from 1-154 months.
• Analysis adjusted for covariates including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and patient complexity measured by Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Systems software.

TAKEAWAY:

• Members with low physical activity showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) for progression or death compared with those with no activity, whereas those with moderate to high activity showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.77).
• For all-cause mortality, low physical activity members demonstrated an HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74), whereas moderate to high activity members showed an HR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.58) compared with inactive members.
• At 24 months post-diagnosis, individuals with moderate to high physical activity showed 80% probability of nonprogression compared with 74% for inactive individuals.
• Survival probability at 24 months was 95% for moderate to high activity members vs 91% for those with no physical activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity may be considered to confer substantial benefits in terms of progression and overall mortality to those diagnosed with cancer. In a world where cancer continues to be a significant public health burden, the promotion of physical activity can yield important benefits regarding the progression of cancer as well as its prevention and management,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ntokozo Mabena of Discovery Vitality in Sandton, South Africa. It was published online in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, potential biases exist from not adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking status and alcohol consumption, along with incomplete body mass index data. The study assumed members without recorded physical activity points were inactive, which may not be accurate for all individuals. The findings may not be generalizable to the broader South African population as the study cohort had access to private medical insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

Authors Mabena, Sandra Lehmann, Deepak Patel, and Mosima Mabunda are employed by Discovery. Other authors Mike Greyling and Jon S. Patricios serve as a consultant for Discovery and an editor of British Journal of Sports Medicine, respectively.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Physical activity before stage I cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced risk for disease progression and mortality. Members engaging in at least 60 minutes of weekly physical activity showed a 27% lower risk for progression and 47% lower risk for mortality compared with inactive individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Physical activity plays a significant role in reducing cancer mortality with high levels having been associated with an 18% reduction in cancer-specific mortality compared with lower levels in patients with pre- and/or post-diagnosed cancer.
• The new analysis included 28,248 members with stage I cancers enrolled in an oncology programme in South Africa, with physical activity recorded through fitness devices, logged gym sessions, and participation in organized events.
• Participants were categorized into three groups: No physical activity (0 min/wk), low physical activity (< 60 min/wk), and moderate to high physical activity (≥ 60 min/wk) based on activity levels 12 months before diagnosis.
• Researchers measured outcomes including time to progression, time to death, and all-cause mortality, with a follow-up period ranging from 1-154 months.
• Analysis adjusted for covariates including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and patient complexity measured by Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Systems software.

TAKEAWAY:

• Members with low physical activity showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) for progression or death compared with those with no activity, whereas those with moderate to high activity showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.77).
• For all-cause mortality, low physical activity members demonstrated an HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74), whereas moderate to high activity members showed an HR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.58) compared with inactive members.
• At 24 months post-diagnosis, individuals with moderate to high physical activity showed 80% probability of nonprogression compared with 74% for inactive individuals.
• Survival probability at 24 months was 95% for moderate to high activity members vs 91% for those with no physical activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity may be considered to confer substantial benefits in terms of progression and overall mortality to those diagnosed with cancer. In a world where cancer continues to be a significant public health burden, the promotion of physical activity can yield important benefits regarding the progression of cancer as well as its prevention and management,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ntokozo Mabena of Discovery Vitality in Sandton, South Africa. It was published online in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, potential biases exist from not adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking status and alcohol consumption, along with incomplete body mass index data. The study assumed members without recorded physical activity points were inactive, which may not be accurate for all individuals. The findings may not be generalizable to the broader South African population as the study cohort had access to private medical insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

Authors Mabena, Sandra Lehmann, Deepak Patel, and Mosima Mabunda are employed by Discovery. Other authors Mike Greyling and Jon S. Patricios serve as a consultant for Discovery and an editor of British Journal of Sports Medicine, respectively.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Physical activity before stage I cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced risk for disease progression and mortality. Members engaging in at least 60 minutes of weekly physical activity showed a 27% lower risk for progression and 47% lower risk for mortality compared with inactive individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Physical activity plays a significant role in reducing cancer mortality with high levels having been associated with an 18% reduction in cancer-specific mortality compared with lower levels in patients with pre- and/or post-diagnosed cancer.
• The new analysis included 28,248 members with stage I cancers enrolled in an oncology programme in South Africa, with physical activity recorded through fitness devices, logged gym sessions, and participation in organized events.
• Participants were categorized into three groups: No physical activity (0 min/wk), low physical activity (< 60 min/wk), and moderate to high physical activity (≥ 60 min/wk) based on activity levels 12 months before diagnosis.
• Researchers measured outcomes including time to progression, time to death, and all-cause mortality, with a follow-up period ranging from 1-154 months.
• Analysis adjusted for covariates including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and patient complexity measured by Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Systems software.

TAKEAWAY:

• Members with low physical activity showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) for progression or death compared with those with no activity, whereas those with moderate to high activity showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.77).
• For all-cause mortality, low physical activity members demonstrated an HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74), whereas moderate to high activity members showed an HR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.58) compared with inactive members.
• At 24 months post-diagnosis, individuals with moderate to high physical activity showed 80% probability of nonprogression compared with 74% for inactive individuals.
• Survival probability at 24 months was 95% for moderate to high activity members vs 91% for those with no physical activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity may be considered to confer substantial benefits in terms of progression and overall mortality to those diagnosed with cancer. In a world where cancer continues to be a significant public health burden, the promotion of physical activity can yield important benefits regarding the progression of cancer as well as its prevention and management,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ntokozo Mabena of Discovery Vitality in Sandton, South Africa. It was published online in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, potential biases exist from not adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking status and alcohol consumption, along with incomplete body mass index data. The study assumed members without recorded physical activity points were inactive, which may not be accurate for all individuals. The findings may not be generalizable to the broader South African population as the study cohort had access to private medical insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

Authors Mabena, Sandra Lehmann, Deepak Patel, and Mosima Mabunda are employed by Discovery. Other authors Mike Greyling and Jon S. Patricios serve as a consultant for Discovery and an editor of British Journal of Sports Medicine, respectively.

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Dr. Maurie Markman from City of Hope. I wanted to briefly discuss a very important paper. This is one that probably didn’t get as much attention as I believe it should. It looks at a very important clinically relevant question, and one that might very much say, can we do more such studies but only do them faster?

This was a trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology earlier this year titled, “Radiation Therapy With or Without Cisplatin for Local Recurrences of Endometrial Cancer: Results From an NRG Oncology/GOG Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study.” 

Fortunately, most patients with endometrial cancer have low-grade cancers and are cured with standard surgery, plus or minus radiation. However, a small percentage of patients, even with low-grade endometrial cancer, will recur.

There are several questions that come up. What is the optimal therapy? What is the outcome for such patients? Should we perhaps give chemotherapy along with the radiation as we do, for example, standardly in cervical cancer?

This study attempted to address that question. There was a total of 165 patients randomized in this trial that went on for 12 years, looking at local radiation vs radiation plus cisplatin — which is, again, standardly given as chemoradiation in cervical cancer.

What were the results? When this paper was reported 16 years after the study was initiated, the results showed the addition of chemotherapy did not add to the benefits of the radiation and in fact increased toxicity. Very importantly, the local control and overall control of the disease was excellent. In fact, at 3 years, 73% of the patients treated with radiation alone were disease-free.

It’s very important to know this, the value of radiation, and that adding chemotherapy with radiation doesn’t make a difference.

One might ask, if this is an important clinical question, is there a way or would there be a way in the future to take a question like this and significantly expand the population of individuals and the population of oncologists that might participate in community-based studies, where you’re asking a very simple question? 

You irradiate vs something else; you have a standard of care; you’re looking at progression-free survival, which is a very valid endpoint, or overall survival, and you don’t anticipate significant differences in toxicity because you might use this therapy otherwise. 

Would it be possible to answer the question not in 12 years, but in half that time or maybe 20% of that time? The results are important for patients being treated today and their doctors who are advising on optimal therapy.

For those of you who are interested in the question of the management of endometrial cancer, this type of pragmatic trial, I would encourage you to read this important paper. Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Dr. Maurie Markman from City of Hope. I wanted to briefly discuss a very important paper. This is one that probably didn’t get as much attention as I believe it should. It looks at a very important clinically relevant question, and one that might very much say, can we do more such studies but only do them faster?

This was a trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology earlier this year titled, “Radiation Therapy With or Without Cisplatin for Local Recurrences of Endometrial Cancer: Results From an NRG Oncology/GOG Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study.” 

Fortunately, most patients with endometrial cancer have low-grade cancers and are cured with standard surgery, plus or minus radiation. However, a small percentage of patients, even with low-grade endometrial cancer, will recur.

There are several questions that come up. What is the optimal therapy? What is the outcome for such patients? Should we perhaps give chemotherapy along with the radiation as we do, for example, standardly in cervical cancer?

This study attempted to address that question. There was a total of 165 patients randomized in this trial that went on for 12 years, looking at local radiation vs radiation plus cisplatin — which is, again, standardly given as chemoradiation in cervical cancer.

What were the results? When this paper was reported 16 years after the study was initiated, the results showed the addition of chemotherapy did not add to the benefits of the radiation and in fact increased toxicity. Very importantly, the local control and overall control of the disease was excellent. In fact, at 3 years, 73% of the patients treated with radiation alone were disease-free.

It’s very important to know this, the value of radiation, and that adding chemotherapy with radiation doesn’t make a difference.

One might ask, if this is an important clinical question, is there a way or would there be a way in the future to take a question like this and significantly expand the population of individuals and the population of oncologists that might participate in community-based studies, where you’re asking a very simple question? 

You irradiate vs something else; you have a standard of care; you’re looking at progression-free survival, which is a very valid endpoint, or overall survival, and you don’t anticipate significant differences in toxicity because you might use this therapy otherwise. 

Would it be possible to answer the question not in 12 years, but in half that time or maybe 20% of that time? The results are important for patients being treated today and their doctors who are advising on optimal therapy.

For those of you who are interested in the question of the management of endometrial cancer, this type of pragmatic trial, I would encourage you to read this important paper. Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Dr. Maurie Markman from City of Hope. I wanted to briefly discuss a very important paper. This is one that probably didn’t get as much attention as I believe it should. It looks at a very important clinically relevant question, and one that might very much say, can we do more such studies but only do them faster?

This was a trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology earlier this year titled, “Radiation Therapy With or Without Cisplatin for Local Recurrences of Endometrial Cancer: Results From an NRG Oncology/GOG Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study.” 

Fortunately, most patients with endometrial cancer have low-grade cancers and are cured with standard surgery, plus or minus radiation. However, a small percentage of patients, even with low-grade endometrial cancer, will recur.

There are several questions that come up. What is the optimal therapy? What is the outcome for such patients? Should we perhaps give chemotherapy along with the radiation as we do, for example, standardly in cervical cancer?

This study attempted to address that question. There was a total of 165 patients randomized in this trial that went on for 12 years, looking at local radiation vs radiation plus cisplatin — which is, again, standardly given as chemoradiation in cervical cancer.

What were the results? When this paper was reported 16 years after the study was initiated, the results showed the addition of chemotherapy did not add to the benefits of the radiation and in fact increased toxicity. Very importantly, the local control and overall control of the disease was excellent. In fact, at 3 years, 73% of the patients treated with radiation alone were disease-free.

It’s very important to know this, the value of radiation, and that adding chemotherapy with radiation doesn’t make a difference.

One might ask, if this is an important clinical question, is there a way or would there be a way in the future to take a question like this and significantly expand the population of individuals and the population of oncologists that might participate in community-based studies, where you’re asking a very simple question? 

You irradiate vs something else; you have a standard of care; you’re looking at progression-free survival, which is a very valid endpoint, or overall survival, and you don’t anticipate significant differences in toxicity because you might use this therapy otherwise. 

Would it be possible to answer the question not in 12 years, but in half that time or maybe 20% of that time? The results are important for patients being treated today and their doctors who are advising on optimal therapy.

For those of you who are interested in the question of the management of endometrial cancer, this type of pragmatic trial, I would encourage you to read this important paper. Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait and subsequent local regrowth have a higher risk for distant metastases than those undergoing immediate surgery. The new study highlights the importance of timely surgical intervention to improve distant metastases–free survival rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy, with the risk for local regrowth after initial clinical complete response being around 25%-30%.
• The new study aimed to compare the risk for distant metastases between patients with local regrowth after watch and wait and patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• A total of 508 patients with local regrowth were included from the International Watch & Wait Database, and 893 patients with near-complete pathologic response were included from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.
• The primary endpoint was distant metastases–free survival at 3 years from the decision to watch and wait or total mesorectal excision, and the secondary endpoints included possible risk factors associated with distant metastases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with local regrowth had a significantly higher rate of distant metastases (rate, 22.8% vs 10.2%; P ≤.001) than those with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• Distant metastases–free survival at 3 years was significantly worse for patients with local regrowth (rate, 75% vs 87%; P < .001).
• Independent risk factors for distant metastases included local regrowth (vs total mesorectal excision at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery.
• Patients with local regrowth had worse distant metastases–free survival across all pathologic stages than those managed by total mesorectal excision.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with local regrowth appear to have a higher risk for subsequent distant metastases development than patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision at restaging irrespective of final pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura M. Fernandez, MD, of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal. It was published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the heterogeneity in defining clinical complete response and the decision to watch and wait across different institutions. The majority of patients did not receive total neoadjuvant therapy regimens, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. The study had a considerable amount of follow-up losses, which could have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation, the Bas Mulder Award, the Alpe d’HuZes Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Fernandez disclosed receiving grants from Johnson & Johnson. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait and subsequent local regrowth have a higher risk for distant metastases than those undergoing immediate surgery. The new study highlights the importance of timely surgical intervention to improve distant metastases–free survival rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy, with the risk for local regrowth after initial clinical complete response being around 25%-30%.
• The new study aimed to compare the risk for distant metastases between patients with local regrowth after watch and wait and patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• A total of 508 patients with local regrowth were included from the International Watch & Wait Database, and 893 patients with near-complete pathologic response were included from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.
• The primary endpoint was distant metastases–free survival at 3 years from the decision to watch and wait or total mesorectal excision, and the secondary endpoints included possible risk factors associated with distant metastases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with local regrowth had a significantly higher rate of distant metastases (rate, 22.8% vs 10.2%; P ≤.001) than those with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• Distant metastases–free survival at 3 years was significantly worse for patients with local regrowth (rate, 75% vs 87%; P < .001).
• Independent risk factors for distant metastases included local regrowth (vs total mesorectal excision at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery.
• Patients with local regrowth had worse distant metastases–free survival across all pathologic stages than those managed by total mesorectal excision.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with local regrowth appear to have a higher risk for subsequent distant metastases development than patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision at restaging irrespective of final pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura M. Fernandez, MD, of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal. It was published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the heterogeneity in defining clinical complete response and the decision to watch and wait across different institutions. The majority of patients did not receive total neoadjuvant therapy regimens, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. The study had a considerable amount of follow-up losses, which could have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation, the Bas Mulder Award, the Alpe d’HuZes Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Fernandez disclosed receiving grants from Johnson & Johnson. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait and subsequent local regrowth have a higher risk for distant metastases than those undergoing immediate surgery. The new study highlights the importance of timely surgical intervention to improve distant metastases–free survival rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy, with the risk for local regrowth after initial clinical complete response being around 25%-30%.
• The new study aimed to compare the risk for distant metastases between patients with local regrowth after watch and wait and patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• A total of 508 patients with local regrowth were included from the International Watch & Wait Database, and 893 patients with near-complete pathologic response were included from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.
• The primary endpoint was distant metastases–free survival at 3 years from the decision to watch and wait or total mesorectal excision, and the secondary endpoints included possible risk factors associated with distant metastases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with local regrowth had a significantly higher rate of distant metastases (rate, 22.8% vs 10.2%; P ≤.001) than those with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• Distant metastases–free survival at 3 years was significantly worse for patients with local regrowth (rate, 75% vs 87%; P < .001).
• Independent risk factors for distant metastases included local regrowth (vs total mesorectal excision at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery.
• Patients with local regrowth had worse distant metastases–free survival across all pathologic stages than those managed by total mesorectal excision.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with local regrowth appear to have a higher risk for subsequent distant metastases development than patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision at restaging irrespective of final pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura M. Fernandez, MD, of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal. It was published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the heterogeneity in defining clinical complete response and the decision to watch and wait across different institutions. The majority of patients did not receive total neoadjuvant therapy regimens, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. The study had a considerable amount of follow-up losses, which could have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation, the Bas Mulder Award, the Alpe d’HuZes Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Fernandez disclosed receiving grants from Johnson & Johnson. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

Results from the British COLO-DETECT trial add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI)–aided colonoscopy to increase premalignant colorectal polyp detection in routine colonoscopy practice.

Colin J. Rees, a professor of gastroenterology in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and colleagues compared the real-world clinical effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy using an “intelligent” module with that of standard colonoscopy in a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

They found the GI Genius Intelligent Endoscopy Module (Medtronic) increased the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure and the adenoma detection rate, especially for small, flat (type 0-IIa) polyps, and sessile serrated lesions, which are more likely to be missed.

“Missed sessile serrated lesions disproportionately increase the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, thus the adoption of GI Genius into routine colonoscopy practice could not only increase polyp detection but also reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“AI is going to have a major impact upon most aspects of healthcare. Some areas of medical practice are now well established, and some are still in evolution,” Rees, who is also president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said in an interview. “Within gastroenterology, the role of AI in endoscopic diagnostics is also evolving. The COLO-DETECT trial demonstrates that AI increases detection of lesions, and work is ongoing to see how AI might help with characterization and other elements of endoscopic practice.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted at 12 National Health Service hospitals in England. The study cohort consisted of adults ≥ 18 years undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening or colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptom surveillance owing to personal or family history.

Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to allocation, whereas histopathologists, cochief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal.

The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures). The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma).

From March 2021 to April 2023, the investigators recruited 2032 participants, 55.7% men, with a mean cohort age of 62.4 years and randomly assigned them to CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1015) or to standard colonoscopy (n = 1017). Of these, 60.6% were undergoing screening and 39.4% had symptomatic indications.

Mean adenomas per procedure were 1.56 (SD, 2.82; n = 1001 participants with data) in the CADe-assisted group vs 1.21 (n = 1009) in the standard group, for an adjusted mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.57; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.47; P < .0001).

Adenomas were detected in 555 (56.6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted group vs 477 (48.4%) of 986 in the standard group, representing a proportion difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 3.9-12.7; adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.78; P < .0001).

As to safety, adverse events were numerically comparable in both the intervention and control groups, with overall events 25 vs 19 and serious events 4 vs 6. On independent review, no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were related to GI Genius.

 

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nabil M. Mansour, MD, an associate professor and director of the McNair General GI Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said GI Genius and other CADe systems represent a significant advance over standard colonoscopy for identifying premalignant polyps. “While the data have been mixed, most studies, particularly randomized controlled trials have shown significant improvements with CADe in detection both terms of in adenomas per colonoscopy and reductions in adenoma miss rate,” he said in an interview.

He added that the main utility of CADe is for asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening and surveillance colonoscopy for CRC screening and prevention, as well as for those with positive stool-based screening tests, “though there is no downside to using it in symptomatic patients as well.” Though AI colonoscopy likely still stands at < 50% of endoscopy centers overall, and is used mainly at academic centers, his clinic has been using it for the past year.

The main question, Mansour cautioned, is whether increased detection of small polyps will actually reduce CRC incidence or mortality, and it will likely be several years before clear, concrete data can answer that.

“Most studies have shown the improvement in adenoma detection is mainly for diminutive polyps < 5 mm in diameter, but whether that will actually translate to substantive improvements in hard outcomes is as yet unknown,” he said. “But if gastroenterologists are interested in doing everything they can today to help improve detection rates and lower miss rates of premalignant polyps, serious consideration should be given to adopting the use of CADe in practice.”

This study was supported by Medtronic. Rees reported receiving grant funding from ARC Medical, Norgine, Medtronic, 3-D Matrix, and Olympus Medical, and has been an expert witness for ARC Medical. Other authors disclosed receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel expenses from Medtronic or other private companies. Mansour had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the British COLO-DETECT trial add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI)–aided colonoscopy to increase premalignant colorectal polyp detection in routine colonoscopy practice.

Colin J. Rees, a professor of gastroenterology in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and colleagues compared the real-world clinical effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy using an “intelligent” module with that of standard colonoscopy in a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

They found the GI Genius Intelligent Endoscopy Module (Medtronic) increased the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure and the adenoma detection rate, especially for small, flat (type 0-IIa) polyps, and sessile serrated lesions, which are more likely to be missed.

“Missed sessile serrated lesions disproportionately increase the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, thus the adoption of GI Genius into routine colonoscopy practice could not only increase polyp detection but also reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“AI is going to have a major impact upon most aspects of healthcare. Some areas of medical practice are now well established, and some are still in evolution,” Rees, who is also president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said in an interview. “Within gastroenterology, the role of AI in endoscopic diagnostics is also evolving. The COLO-DETECT trial demonstrates that AI increases detection of lesions, and work is ongoing to see how AI might help with characterization and other elements of endoscopic practice.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted at 12 National Health Service hospitals in England. The study cohort consisted of adults ≥ 18 years undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening or colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptom surveillance owing to personal or family history.

Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to allocation, whereas histopathologists, cochief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal.

The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures). The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma).

From March 2021 to April 2023, the investigators recruited 2032 participants, 55.7% men, with a mean cohort age of 62.4 years and randomly assigned them to CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1015) or to standard colonoscopy (n = 1017). Of these, 60.6% were undergoing screening and 39.4% had symptomatic indications.

Mean adenomas per procedure were 1.56 (SD, 2.82; n = 1001 participants with data) in the CADe-assisted group vs 1.21 (n = 1009) in the standard group, for an adjusted mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.57; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.47; P < .0001).

Adenomas were detected in 555 (56.6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted group vs 477 (48.4%) of 986 in the standard group, representing a proportion difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 3.9-12.7; adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.78; P < .0001).

As to safety, adverse events were numerically comparable in both the intervention and control groups, with overall events 25 vs 19 and serious events 4 vs 6. On independent review, no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were related to GI Genius.

 

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nabil M. Mansour, MD, an associate professor and director of the McNair General GI Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said GI Genius and other CADe systems represent a significant advance over standard colonoscopy for identifying premalignant polyps. “While the data have been mixed, most studies, particularly randomized controlled trials have shown significant improvements with CADe in detection both terms of in adenomas per colonoscopy and reductions in adenoma miss rate,” he said in an interview.

He added that the main utility of CADe is for asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening and surveillance colonoscopy for CRC screening and prevention, as well as for those with positive stool-based screening tests, “though there is no downside to using it in symptomatic patients as well.” Though AI colonoscopy likely still stands at < 50% of endoscopy centers overall, and is used mainly at academic centers, his clinic has been using it for the past year.

The main question, Mansour cautioned, is whether increased detection of small polyps will actually reduce CRC incidence or mortality, and it will likely be several years before clear, concrete data can answer that.

“Most studies have shown the improvement in adenoma detection is mainly for diminutive polyps < 5 mm in diameter, but whether that will actually translate to substantive improvements in hard outcomes is as yet unknown,” he said. “But if gastroenterologists are interested in doing everything they can today to help improve detection rates and lower miss rates of premalignant polyps, serious consideration should be given to adopting the use of CADe in practice.”

This study was supported by Medtronic. Rees reported receiving grant funding from ARC Medical, Norgine, Medtronic, 3-D Matrix, and Olympus Medical, and has been an expert witness for ARC Medical. Other authors disclosed receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel expenses from Medtronic or other private companies. Mansour had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the British COLO-DETECT trial add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI)–aided colonoscopy to increase premalignant colorectal polyp detection in routine colonoscopy practice.

Colin J. Rees, a professor of gastroenterology in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and colleagues compared the real-world clinical effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy using an “intelligent” module with that of standard colonoscopy in a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

They found the GI Genius Intelligent Endoscopy Module (Medtronic) increased the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure and the adenoma detection rate, especially for small, flat (type 0-IIa) polyps, and sessile serrated lesions, which are more likely to be missed.

“Missed sessile serrated lesions disproportionately increase the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, thus the adoption of GI Genius into routine colonoscopy practice could not only increase polyp detection but also reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“AI is going to have a major impact upon most aspects of healthcare. Some areas of medical practice are now well established, and some are still in evolution,” Rees, who is also president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said in an interview. “Within gastroenterology, the role of AI in endoscopic diagnostics is also evolving. The COLO-DETECT trial demonstrates that AI increases detection of lesions, and work is ongoing to see how AI might help with characterization and other elements of endoscopic practice.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted at 12 National Health Service hospitals in England. The study cohort consisted of adults ≥ 18 years undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening or colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptom surveillance owing to personal or family history.

Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to allocation, whereas histopathologists, cochief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal.

The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures). The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma).

From March 2021 to April 2023, the investigators recruited 2032 participants, 55.7% men, with a mean cohort age of 62.4 years and randomly assigned them to CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1015) or to standard colonoscopy (n = 1017). Of these, 60.6% were undergoing screening and 39.4% had symptomatic indications.

Mean adenomas per procedure were 1.56 (SD, 2.82; n = 1001 participants with data) in the CADe-assisted group vs 1.21 (n = 1009) in the standard group, for an adjusted mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.57; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.47; P < .0001).

Adenomas were detected in 555 (56.6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted group vs 477 (48.4%) of 986 in the standard group, representing a proportion difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 3.9-12.7; adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.78; P < .0001).

As to safety, adverse events were numerically comparable in both the intervention and control groups, with overall events 25 vs 19 and serious events 4 vs 6. On independent review, no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were related to GI Genius.

 

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nabil M. Mansour, MD, an associate professor and director of the McNair General GI Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said GI Genius and other CADe systems represent a significant advance over standard colonoscopy for identifying premalignant polyps. “While the data have been mixed, most studies, particularly randomized controlled trials have shown significant improvements with CADe in detection both terms of in adenomas per colonoscopy and reductions in adenoma miss rate,” he said in an interview.

He added that the main utility of CADe is for asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening and surveillance colonoscopy for CRC screening and prevention, as well as for those with positive stool-based screening tests, “though there is no downside to using it in symptomatic patients as well.” Though AI colonoscopy likely still stands at < 50% of endoscopy centers overall, and is used mainly at academic centers, his clinic has been using it for the past year.

The main question, Mansour cautioned, is whether increased detection of small polyps will actually reduce CRC incidence or mortality, and it will likely be several years before clear, concrete data can answer that.

“Most studies have shown the improvement in adenoma detection is mainly for diminutive polyps < 5 mm in diameter, but whether that will actually translate to substantive improvements in hard outcomes is as yet unknown,” he said. “But if gastroenterologists are interested in doing everything they can today to help improve detection rates and lower miss rates of premalignant polyps, serious consideration should be given to adopting the use of CADe in practice.”

This study was supported by Medtronic. Rees reported receiving grant funding from ARC Medical, Norgine, Medtronic, 3-D Matrix, and Olympus Medical, and has been an expert witness for ARC Medical. Other authors disclosed receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel expenses from Medtronic or other private companies. Mansour had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Survivors of blood or marrow transplant (BMT) face a significant risk of developing cutaneous malignant neoplasms, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
• Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
• The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
• A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
• Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
• The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.

IN PRACTICE:

In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.

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

TOPLINE:

Survivors of blood or marrow transplant (BMT) face a significant risk of developing cutaneous malignant neoplasms, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
• Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
• The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
• A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
• Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
• The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.

IN PRACTICE:

In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.

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

TOPLINE:

Survivors of blood or marrow transplant (BMT) face a significant risk of developing cutaneous malignant neoplasms, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
• Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
• The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
• A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
• Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
• The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.

IN PRACTICE:

In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of active surveillance or watchful waiting increased by more than twofold overall between 2010 and 2020 among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
• To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
• Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
• Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
• Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
• Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
• Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of active surveillance or watchful waiting increased by more than twofold overall between 2010 and 2020 among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
• To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
• Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
• Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
• Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
• Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
• Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of active surveillance or watchful waiting increased by more than twofold overall between 2010 and 2020 among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
• To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
• Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
• Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
• Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
• Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
• Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.

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