AVAHO

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) now has a permanent pharmacogenomics service that provides genetic tests to give clinicians insight into the best medication options for their patients.

The tests, which have no extra cost, are available to all veterans, said pharmacist Jill S. Bates, PharmD, MS, executive director of the VA National Pharmacogenomics Program, who spoke in an interview and a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Genetic testing is “a tool that can help optimize care that we provide for veterans,” she said. “Pharmacogenomics is additional information to help the clinician make a decision. We know that most veterans—greater than 90%—carry a variant in a pharmacogenomics gene that is actionable.”

The genetic tests can provide insight into the optimal medication for multiple conditions such as mental illness, gastrointestinal disorders, cancer, pain, and heart disease. According to a 2019 analysis of over 6 years of data, more than half of the VA patient population used medications whose efficacy may have been affected by detectable genetic variants.

For instance, Bates said tests can let clinicians know whether patients are susceptible to statin-associated muscle adverse effects if they take simvastatin, the cholesterol medication. An estimated 25.6% of the VA population has this variant.

Elsewhere on the cardiac front, an estimated 58.3% of the VA population has a genetic variant that increases sensitivity to the blood thinner warfarin.

Testing could help psychiatrists determine whether certain medications should not be prescribed—or should be prescribed at lower doses—in patients who’ve had adverse reactions to antidepressants, Bates said.

In cancer, Bates said, genetic testing can identify patients who have a genetic variant that boosts toxicity from fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy treatments, which include capecitabine, floxuridine, and fluorouracil. Meanwhile, an estimated 0.9% will have no reaction or limited reaction to capecitabine and fluorouracil, and 4.8% will have hypersensitivity to carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine. 

Tests can also identify a genetic variant that can lead to poor metabolism of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan, which is used to treat colon cancer. “In those patients, you’d want to reduce the dose by 20%,” Bates said. In other cases, alternate drugs may be the best strategy to address genetic variations.

Prior to 2019, clinicians had to order pharmacogenomic tests outside of the VA system, according to Bates. That year, a donation from Sanford Health brought VA pharmacogenomics to 40 pilot sites. Since then, more than 88,000 tests have been performed.

The VA has now made its pharmacogenomic program permanent, Bates said. As of early September, testing was available at 139 VA sites and is coming soon to 4 more. It’s not available at another 23 sites that are scattered across the country.

A tool in the VA electronic health record now reminds clinicians about the availability of genetic testing and allows them to order tests. However, testing isn’t available for patients who have had liver transplants or certain bone marrow transplants.

The VA is working on developing decision-making tools to help clinicians determine when the tests are appropriate, Bates said. It typically takes 2 to 3 weeks to get results, she said, adding that external laboratories provide results. “We eventually would like to bring in all pharmacogenomics testing to be conducted within the VA enterprise.”

Bates reported that she had no disclosures.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) now has a permanent pharmacogenomics service that provides genetic tests to give clinicians insight into the best medication options for their patients.

The tests, which have no extra cost, are available to all veterans, said pharmacist Jill S. Bates, PharmD, MS, executive director of the VA National Pharmacogenomics Program, who spoke in an interview and a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Genetic testing is “a tool that can help optimize care that we provide for veterans,” she said. “Pharmacogenomics is additional information to help the clinician make a decision. We know that most veterans—greater than 90%—carry a variant in a pharmacogenomics gene that is actionable.”

The genetic tests can provide insight into the optimal medication for multiple conditions such as mental illness, gastrointestinal disorders, cancer, pain, and heart disease. According to a 2019 analysis of over 6 years of data, more than half of the VA patient population used medications whose efficacy may have been affected by detectable genetic variants.

For instance, Bates said tests can let clinicians know whether patients are susceptible to statin-associated muscle adverse effects if they take simvastatin, the cholesterol medication. An estimated 25.6% of the VA population has this variant.

Elsewhere on the cardiac front, an estimated 58.3% of the VA population has a genetic variant that increases sensitivity to the blood thinner warfarin.

Testing could help psychiatrists determine whether certain medications should not be prescribed—or should be prescribed at lower doses—in patients who’ve had adverse reactions to antidepressants, Bates said.

In cancer, Bates said, genetic testing can identify patients who have a genetic variant that boosts toxicity from fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy treatments, which include capecitabine, floxuridine, and fluorouracil. Meanwhile, an estimated 0.9% will have no reaction or limited reaction to capecitabine and fluorouracil, and 4.8% will have hypersensitivity to carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine. 

Tests can also identify a genetic variant that can lead to poor metabolism of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan, which is used to treat colon cancer. “In those patients, you’d want to reduce the dose by 20%,” Bates said. In other cases, alternate drugs may be the best strategy to address genetic variations.

Prior to 2019, clinicians had to order pharmacogenomic tests outside of the VA system, according to Bates. That year, a donation from Sanford Health brought VA pharmacogenomics to 40 pilot sites. Since then, more than 88,000 tests have been performed.

The VA has now made its pharmacogenomic program permanent, Bates said. As of early September, testing was available at 139 VA sites and is coming soon to 4 more. It’s not available at another 23 sites that are scattered across the country.

A tool in the VA electronic health record now reminds clinicians about the availability of genetic testing and allows them to order tests. However, testing isn’t available for patients who have had liver transplants or certain bone marrow transplants.

The VA is working on developing decision-making tools to help clinicians determine when the tests are appropriate, Bates said. It typically takes 2 to 3 weeks to get results, she said, adding that external laboratories provide results. “We eventually would like to bring in all pharmacogenomics testing to be conducted within the VA enterprise.”

Bates reported that she had no disclosures.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) now has a permanent pharmacogenomics service that provides genetic tests to give clinicians insight into the best medication options for their patients.

The tests, which have no extra cost, are available to all veterans, said pharmacist Jill S. Bates, PharmD, MS, executive director of the VA National Pharmacogenomics Program, who spoke in an interview and a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Genetic testing is “a tool that can help optimize care that we provide for veterans,” she said. “Pharmacogenomics is additional information to help the clinician make a decision. We know that most veterans—greater than 90%—carry a variant in a pharmacogenomics gene that is actionable.”

The genetic tests can provide insight into the optimal medication for multiple conditions such as mental illness, gastrointestinal disorders, cancer, pain, and heart disease. According to a 2019 analysis of over 6 years of data, more than half of the VA patient population used medications whose efficacy may have been affected by detectable genetic variants.

For instance, Bates said tests can let clinicians know whether patients are susceptible to statin-associated muscle adverse effects if they take simvastatin, the cholesterol medication. An estimated 25.6% of the VA population has this variant.

Elsewhere on the cardiac front, an estimated 58.3% of the VA population has a genetic variant that increases sensitivity to the blood thinner warfarin.

Testing could help psychiatrists determine whether certain medications should not be prescribed—or should be prescribed at lower doses—in patients who’ve had adverse reactions to antidepressants, Bates said.

In cancer, Bates said, genetic testing can identify patients who have a genetic variant that boosts toxicity from fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy treatments, which include capecitabine, floxuridine, and fluorouracil. Meanwhile, an estimated 0.9% will have no reaction or limited reaction to capecitabine and fluorouracil, and 4.8% will have hypersensitivity to carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine. 

Tests can also identify a genetic variant that can lead to poor metabolism of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan, which is used to treat colon cancer. “In those patients, you’d want to reduce the dose by 20%,” Bates said. In other cases, alternate drugs may be the best strategy to address genetic variations.

Prior to 2019, clinicians had to order pharmacogenomic tests outside of the VA system, according to Bates. That year, a donation from Sanford Health brought VA pharmacogenomics to 40 pilot sites. Since then, more than 88,000 tests have been performed.

The VA has now made its pharmacogenomic program permanent, Bates said. As of early September, testing was available at 139 VA sites and is coming soon to 4 more. It’s not available at another 23 sites that are scattered across the country.

A tool in the VA electronic health record now reminds clinicians about the availability of genetic testing and allows them to order tests. However, testing isn’t available for patients who have had liver transplants or certain bone marrow transplants.

The VA is working on developing decision-making tools to help clinicians determine when the tests are appropriate, Bates said. It typically takes 2 to 3 weeks to get results, she said, adding that external laboratories provide results. “We eventually would like to bring in all pharmacogenomics testing to be conducted within the VA enterprise.”

Bates reported that she had no disclosures.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A single infusion of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy ciltacabtagene autoleucel, or cilta-cel (CARVYKTI, Janssen Biotech, Inc.), reduces the risk for death by 45% vs standard-of-care (SoC) therapies in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, according to the latest data from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 study.

“Cilta-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in multiple myeloma,” María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, said during a presentation of the updated CARTITUDE-4 data at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in late September.

A prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis at a median follow-up of 34 months showed that median OS was not reached in either the cilta-cel or SoC therapy arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55). The 30-month OS rates were 76% and 64% in the arms, respectively, said Dr. Mateos, a professor at the University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.

The significant OS benefit was sustained across all prespecified subgroups, she noted.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved cilta-cel in 2022 for use after at least four prior lines of therapy in patients with lenalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma based on findings from the CARTITUDE-1 trial. In April 2024, based on progression-free survival (PFS) findings at median follow-up of 16 months in CARTITUDE-4 (HR for progression/death vs SoC, 0.26), that approval was expanded to include patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma after one or more prior lines of therapy.

“CARVYKTI demonstrated remarkable efficacy as a personalized, one-time infusion in the earlier treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma as shown through the CARTITUDE-4 study results,” study coauthor Binod Dhakal, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, stated in a press release announcing that expansion. “With this approval, I’m excited for patients who may have the opportunity for a treatment-free period for their multiple myeloma as early as first relapse, with the hope of eliminating the burden of having to be on continuous treatment while living with this challenging disease.”

At the latest analysis, PFS was not reached in the cilta-cel arm and was 11.79 months with SoC, Dr. Mateos said.

The 30-month PFS rates were 59% and 26%, respectively (HR, 0.29), and the PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups.

Patients in the cilta-cel arm also had better complete response rates (77% vs 24%), overall response rates (85% vs 67%), and minimal residual disease-negativity rates (62% vs 18%).

Median duration of response was not reached with cilta-cel and was 18.69 months with SoC, and median time to symptom worsening was not reached vs 34.33 months, respectively.

Safety at the latest update was consistent with prior analyses.

The CARTITUDE findings continue to support the overall benefit-risk profile of cilta-cel vs SoC in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma as early as after the first relapse, Dr. Mateos concluded.

Despite the “compelling efficacy” of cilta-cel, there remains a need for “a safer and equally (if not more) effective CAR-T product” in this setting, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, told this news organization.

“The trial does not change my practice,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“We must recognize that the control arm [in CARTITUDE-4] isn’t the best available standard of care,” he explained, noting that carfilzomib-containing triplets were not allowed. “Furthermore, overall survival is dependent on access to good therapies upon relapse, and patients in the control arm did not cross over to get cilta-cel at the time of relapse.

“We do not know if overall survival benefit would have been present if the control arm was better and if there was access to better post-protocol therapy.”

Toxicity is also a concern, he said.

“I think of it as high risk-high reward. There was a sevenfold increased incidence of secondary hematological malignancies in the cilta-cel arm compared to standard of care — this is a very concerning signal that dampens my enthusiasm to use this drug early for everyone,” he added.

For example, although Parkinsonism was rare, it generally did not resolve and lasted years, resolving in only 13% of affected patients, with a median time to resolution of 523 days.

“These are horrible odds, and for many patients there may be safer options,” he noted, adding that “cilta-cel is an option I would consider for some relapses (very early relapse while still on multi-agent therapy, high-risk disease), but otherwise I think personally it’s too toxic for most first relapses.”

Dr. Mateos reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Kite, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.
 

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

A single infusion of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy ciltacabtagene autoleucel, or cilta-cel (CARVYKTI, Janssen Biotech, Inc.), reduces the risk for death by 45% vs standard-of-care (SoC) therapies in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, according to the latest data from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 study.

“Cilta-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in multiple myeloma,” María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, said during a presentation of the updated CARTITUDE-4 data at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in late September.

A prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis at a median follow-up of 34 months showed that median OS was not reached in either the cilta-cel or SoC therapy arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55). The 30-month OS rates were 76% and 64% in the arms, respectively, said Dr. Mateos, a professor at the University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.

The significant OS benefit was sustained across all prespecified subgroups, she noted.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved cilta-cel in 2022 for use after at least four prior lines of therapy in patients with lenalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma based on findings from the CARTITUDE-1 trial. In April 2024, based on progression-free survival (PFS) findings at median follow-up of 16 months in CARTITUDE-4 (HR for progression/death vs SoC, 0.26), that approval was expanded to include patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma after one or more prior lines of therapy.

“CARVYKTI demonstrated remarkable efficacy as a personalized, one-time infusion in the earlier treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma as shown through the CARTITUDE-4 study results,” study coauthor Binod Dhakal, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, stated in a press release announcing that expansion. “With this approval, I’m excited for patients who may have the opportunity for a treatment-free period for their multiple myeloma as early as first relapse, with the hope of eliminating the burden of having to be on continuous treatment while living with this challenging disease.”

At the latest analysis, PFS was not reached in the cilta-cel arm and was 11.79 months with SoC, Dr. Mateos said.

The 30-month PFS rates were 59% and 26%, respectively (HR, 0.29), and the PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups.

Patients in the cilta-cel arm also had better complete response rates (77% vs 24%), overall response rates (85% vs 67%), and minimal residual disease-negativity rates (62% vs 18%).

Median duration of response was not reached with cilta-cel and was 18.69 months with SoC, and median time to symptom worsening was not reached vs 34.33 months, respectively.

Safety at the latest update was consistent with prior analyses.

The CARTITUDE findings continue to support the overall benefit-risk profile of cilta-cel vs SoC in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma as early as after the first relapse, Dr. Mateos concluded.

Despite the “compelling efficacy” of cilta-cel, there remains a need for “a safer and equally (if not more) effective CAR-T product” in this setting, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, told this news organization.

“The trial does not change my practice,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“We must recognize that the control arm [in CARTITUDE-4] isn’t the best available standard of care,” he explained, noting that carfilzomib-containing triplets were not allowed. “Furthermore, overall survival is dependent on access to good therapies upon relapse, and patients in the control arm did not cross over to get cilta-cel at the time of relapse.

“We do not know if overall survival benefit would have been present if the control arm was better and if there was access to better post-protocol therapy.”

Toxicity is also a concern, he said.

“I think of it as high risk-high reward. There was a sevenfold increased incidence of secondary hematological malignancies in the cilta-cel arm compared to standard of care — this is a very concerning signal that dampens my enthusiasm to use this drug early for everyone,” he added.

For example, although Parkinsonism was rare, it generally did not resolve and lasted years, resolving in only 13% of affected patients, with a median time to resolution of 523 days.

“These are horrible odds, and for many patients there may be safer options,” he noted, adding that “cilta-cel is an option I would consider for some relapses (very early relapse while still on multi-agent therapy, high-risk disease), but otherwise I think personally it’s too toxic for most first relapses.”

Dr. Mateos reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Kite, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.
 

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

A single infusion of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy ciltacabtagene autoleucel, or cilta-cel (CARVYKTI, Janssen Biotech, Inc.), reduces the risk for death by 45% vs standard-of-care (SoC) therapies in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, according to the latest data from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 study.

“Cilta-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in multiple myeloma,” María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, said during a presentation of the updated CARTITUDE-4 data at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in late September.

A prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis at a median follow-up of 34 months showed that median OS was not reached in either the cilta-cel or SoC therapy arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55). The 30-month OS rates were 76% and 64% in the arms, respectively, said Dr. Mateos, a professor at the University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.

The significant OS benefit was sustained across all prespecified subgroups, she noted.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved cilta-cel in 2022 for use after at least four prior lines of therapy in patients with lenalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma based on findings from the CARTITUDE-1 trial. In April 2024, based on progression-free survival (PFS) findings at median follow-up of 16 months in CARTITUDE-4 (HR for progression/death vs SoC, 0.26), that approval was expanded to include patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma after one or more prior lines of therapy.

“CARVYKTI demonstrated remarkable efficacy as a personalized, one-time infusion in the earlier treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma as shown through the CARTITUDE-4 study results,” study coauthor Binod Dhakal, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, stated in a press release announcing that expansion. “With this approval, I’m excited for patients who may have the opportunity for a treatment-free period for their multiple myeloma as early as first relapse, with the hope of eliminating the burden of having to be on continuous treatment while living with this challenging disease.”

At the latest analysis, PFS was not reached in the cilta-cel arm and was 11.79 months with SoC, Dr. Mateos said.

The 30-month PFS rates were 59% and 26%, respectively (HR, 0.29), and the PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups.

Patients in the cilta-cel arm also had better complete response rates (77% vs 24%), overall response rates (85% vs 67%), and minimal residual disease-negativity rates (62% vs 18%).

Median duration of response was not reached with cilta-cel and was 18.69 months with SoC, and median time to symptom worsening was not reached vs 34.33 months, respectively.

Safety at the latest update was consistent with prior analyses.

The CARTITUDE findings continue to support the overall benefit-risk profile of cilta-cel vs SoC in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma as early as after the first relapse, Dr. Mateos concluded.

Despite the “compelling efficacy” of cilta-cel, there remains a need for “a safer and equally (if not more) effective CAR-T product” in this setting, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, told this news organization.

“The trial does not change my practice,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“We must recognize that the control arm [in CARTITUDE-4] isn’t the best available standard of care,” he explained, noting that carfilzomib-containing triplets were not allowed. “Furthermore, overall survival is dependent on access to good therapies upon relapse, and patients in the control arm did not cross over to get cilta-cel at the time of relapse.

“We do not know if overall survival benefit would have been present if the control arm was better and if there was access to better post-protocol therapy.”

Toxicity is also a concern, he said.

“I think of it as high risk-high reward. There was a sevenfold increased incidence of secondary hematological malignancies in the cilta-cel arm compared to standard of care — this is a very concerning signal that dampens my enthusiasm to use this drug early for everyone,” he added.

For example, although Parkinsonism was rare, it generally did not resolve and lasted years, resolving in only 13% of affected patients, with a median time to resolution of 523 days.

“These are horrible odds, and for many patients there may be safer options,” he noted, adding that “cilta-cel is an option I would consider for some relapses (very early relapse while still on multi-agent therapy, high-risk disease), but otherwise I think personally it’s too toxic for most first relapses.”

Dr. Mateos reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Kite, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.
 

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

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

Research conducted at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) could offer crucial insight into the hotly debated question of whether patients with head and neck cancer should have access to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) before they develop malnutrition.

While no definitive conclusions can be drawn until a complete study is performed, early findings of a pilot trial are intriguing, said advanced practice oncology dietitian Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO, of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, who spoke in an interview with Federal Practitioner and at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

So far, the 12 patients with head and neck cancer who agreed to the placement of prophylactic feeding tubes prior to chemoradiation have had worse outcomes in some areas compared to the 9 patients who had tubes inserted when clinically indicated and the 12 who didn't need feeding tubes.

Petersen cautioned that the study is small and underpowered at this point. Still, she noted, "We're seeing a hint of exactly the opposite of what I expected. Those who get a tube prophylactically are doing worse than those who are getting it reactively or not at all, If that's the case, that's a really important outcome."

As Petersen explained, the placement of PEG feeding tubes is a hot topic in head and neck cancer care. Malnutrition affects about 80% of these patients and can contribute to mortality, raising the question of whether they should have access to feeding tubes placed prior to treatment in case enteral nutrition is needed.

In some patients with head and neck cancer, malnutrition may arise when tumors block food intake or prevent patients from swallowing. "But in my clinical experience, most often it's from the adverse effects of radiation and chemotherapy. Radiation creates burns inside their throat that make it hard to swallow. Or they have taste changes or really dry mouth," Petersen said.

"On top of these problems, chemotherapy can cause nausea and vomiting," she said. Placing feeding tube access may seem like a smart strategy to head off malnutrition as soon as it occurs. But, as Petersen noted, feeding tube use can lead to dependency as patients lose their ability to swallow. "There's a theory that if we give people feeding tubes, they'll go with the easier route of using a feeding tube and not keep swallowing. Then those swallowing muscles would weaken, and patients would end up permanently on a feeding tube."

In 2020, a retrospective VA study linked feeding tube dependence to lower overall survival in head and neck cancer patients. There are also risks to feeding tube placement, such as infection, pain, leakage, and inflammation.

But what if feeding tube valves are inserted prophylactically so they can be used for nutrition if needed? "We just haven't had any prospective studies to get to the heart of the matter and answer the question," she said. "It's hard to recruit. How do you convince somebody to randomly be assigned to have a hole poked in their stomach?"

For the new pilot study, researchers in Phoenix decided not to randomize patients. Instead, they asked them whether they'd accept the placement of feeding tube valves on a prophylactic basis.

Thirty-six veterans enrolled in 3 years, 33% of those were eligible. Twelve have died, 1 withdrew, and 2 were lost to follow-up.

Those in the prophylactic group had worse physical function and muscle strength over time, while those who received feeding tubes when needed had more adverse events.

Why might some outcomes be worse for patients who chose the prophylactic approach? "The answer is unclear," Petersen said. "Although one possibility is that those patients had higher-risk tumors and were more clued into their own risk."

"The goal now is to get funding for an expanded, multicenter study within the VA," Petersen said. The big question that she hopes to answer is: Does a prophylactic approach work? "Does it make a difference for patients in terms of how quickly they go back to living a full, meaningful life and be able to do all the things that they normally would do?"

A complete study would likely last 7 years, but helpful results may come earlier. "We are starting to see significant differences in terms of our main outcomes of physical function," Petersen said. "We only need 1 to 2 years of data for each patient to get to the heart of that."

The study is not funded, and Petersen reported no disclosures.

Research conducted at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) could offer crucial insight into the hotly debated question of whether patients with head and neck cancer should have access to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) before they develop malnutrition.

While no definitive conclusions can be drawn until a complete study is performed, early findings of a pilot trial are intriguing, said advanced practice oncology dietitian Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO, of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, who spoke in an interview with Federal Practitioner and at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

So far, the 12 patients with head and neck cancer who agreed to the placement of prophylactic feeding tubes prior to chemoradiation have had worse outcomes in some areas compared to the 9 patients who had tubes inserted when clinically indicated and the 12 who didn't need feeding tubes.

Petersen cautioned that the study is small and underpowered at this point. Still, she noted, "We're seeing a hint of exactly the opposite of what I expected. Those who get a tube prophylactically are doing worse than those who are getting it reactively or not at all, If that's the case, that's a really important outcome."

As Petersen explained, the placement of PEG feeding tubes is a hot topic in head and neck cancer care. Malnutrition affects about 80% of these patients and can contribute to mortality, raising the question of whether they should have access to feeding tubes placed prior to treatment in case enteral nutrition is needed.

In some patients with head and neck cancer, malnutrition may arise when tumors block food intake or prevent patients from swallowing. "But in my clinical experience, most often it's from the adverse effects of radiation and chemotherapy. Radiation creates burns inside their throat that make it hard to swallow. Or they have taste changes or really dry mouth," Petersen said.

"On top of these problems, chemotherapy can cause nausea and vomiting," she said. Placing feeding tube access may seem like a smart strategy to head off malnutrition as soon as it occurs. But, as Petersen noted, feeding tube use can lead to dependency as patients lose their ability to swallow. "There's a theory that if we give people feeding tubes, they'll go with the easier route of using a feeding tube and not keep swallowing. Then those swallowing muscles would weaken, and patients would end up permanently on a feeding tube."

In 2020, a retrospective VA study linked feeding tube dependence to lower overall survival in head and neck cancer patients. There are also risks to feeding tube placement, such as infection, pain, leakage, and inflammation.

But what if feeding tube valves are inserted prophylactically so they can be used for nutrition if needed? "We just haven't had any prospective studies to get to the heart of the matter and answer the question," she said. "It's hard to recruit. How do you convince somebody to randomly be assigned to have a hole poked in their stomach?"

For the new pilot study, researchers in Phoenix decided not to randomize patients. Instead, they asked them whether they'd accept the placement of feeding tube valves on a prophylactic basis.

Thirty-six veterans enrolled in 3 years, 33% of those were eligible. Twelve have died, 1 withdrew, and 2 were lost to follow-up.

Those in the prophylactic group had worse physical function and muscle strength over time, while those who received feeding tubes when needed had more adverse events.

Why might some outcomes be worse for patients who chose the prophylactic approach? "The answer is unclear," Petersen said. "Although one possibility is that those patients had higher-risk tumors and were more clued into their own risk."

"The goal now is to get funding for an expanded, multicenter study within the VA," Petersen said. The big question that she hopes to answer is: Does a prophylactic approach work? "Does it make a difference for patients in terms of how quickly they go back to living a full, meaningful life and be able to do all the things that they normally would do?"

A complete study would likely last 7 years, but helpful results may come earlier. "We are starting to see significant differences in terms of our main outcomes of physical function," Petersen said. "We only need 1 to 2 years of data for each patient to get to the heart of that."

The study is not funded, and Petersen reported no disclosures.

Research conducted at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) could offer crucial insight into the hotly debated question of whether patients with head and neck cancer should have access to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) before they develop malnutrition.

While no definitive conclusions can be drawn until a complete study is performed, early findings of a pilot trial are intriguing, said advanced practice oncology dietitian Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO, of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, who spoke in an interview with Federal Practitioner and at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

So far, the 12 patients with head and neck cancer who agreed to the placement of prophylactic feeding tubes prior to chemoradiation have had worse outcomes in some areas compared to the 9 patients who had tubes inserted when clinically indicated and the 12 who didn't need feeding tubes.

Petersen cautioned that the study is small and underpowered at this point. Still, she noted, "We're seeing a hint of exactly the opposite of what I expected. Those who get a tube prophylactically are doing worse than those who are getting it reactively or not at all, If that's the case, that's a really important outcome."

As Petersen explained, the placement of PEG feeding tubes is a hot topic in head and neck cancer care. Malnutrition affects about 80% of these patients and can contribute to mortality, raising the question of whether they should have access to feeding tubes placed prior to treatment in case enteral nutrition is needed.

In some patients with head and neck cancer, malnutrition may arise when tumors block food intake or prevent patients from swallowing. "But in my clinical experience, most often it's from the adverse effects of radiation and chemotherapy. Radiation creates burns inside their throat that make it hard to swallow. Or they have taste changes or really dry mouth," Petersen said.

"On top of these problems, chemotherapy can cause nausea and vomiting," she said. Placing feeding tube access may seem like a smart strategy to head off malnutrition as soon as it occurs. But, as Petersen noted, feeding tube use can lead to dependency as patients lose their ability to swallow. "There's a theory that if we give people feeding tubes, they'll go with the easier route of using a feeding tube and not keep swallowing. Then those swallowing muscles would weaken, and patients would end up permanently on a feeding tube."

In 2020, a retrospective VA study linked feeding tube dependence to lower overall survival in head and neck cancer patients. There are also risks to feeding tube placement, such as infection, pain, leakage, and inflammation.

But what if feeding tube valves are inserted prophylactically so they can be used for nutrition if needed? "We just haven't had any prospective studies to get to the heart of the matter and answer the question," she said. "It's hard to recruit. How do you convince somebody to randomly be assigned to have a hole poked in their stomach?"

For the new pilot study, researchers in Phoenix decided not to randomize patients. Instead, they asked them whether they'd accept the placement of feeding tube valves on a prophylactic basis.

Thirty-six veterans enrolled in 3 years, 33% of those were eligible. Twelve have died, 1 withdrew, and 2 were lost to follow-up.

Those in the prophylactic group had worse physical function and muscle strength over time, while those who received feeding tubes when needed had more adverse events.

Why might some outcomes be worse for patients who chose the prophylactic approach? "The answer is unclear," Petersen said. "Although one possibility is that those patients had higher-risk tumors and were more clued into their own risk."

"The goal now is to get funding for an expanded, multicenter study within the VA," Petersen said. The big question that she hopes to answer is: Does a prophylactic approach work? "Does it make a difference for patients in terms of how quickly they go back to living a full, meaningful life and be able to do all the things that they normally would do?"

A complete study would likely last 7 years, but helpful results may come earlier. "We are starting to see significant differences in terms of our main outcomes of physical function," Petersen said. "We only need 1 to 2 years of data for each patient to get to the heart of that."

The study is not funded, and Petersen reported no disclosures.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care for about 10,000 transgender women, and clinicians must understand their distinctive needs for prostate cancer screening, a urologist told cancer specialists during a presentation at the 2024 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology in Atlanta.

Even if they’ve undergone gender reassignment surgery, “all transgender women still have a prostate, so therefore they remain at risk of prostate cancer and could still be considered for prostate cancer screening,” said Farnoosh Nik-Ahd, MD, a resident physician at the University of California San Francisco. However, “clinicians and patients may not be aware of prostate cancer risk, so that they may not think [of screening] transgender women.”

Nik-Ahd also noted another complication: The results of prostate screening tests may be misleading in this population.

Transgender women were born biologically male but now identify as female. These individuals may have undergone gender reassignment surgery to remove male genitalia, but the procedures do not remove the prostate. They also might be taking estrogen therapy. “Prostate cancer is a hormonally driven cancer, and the exact impact of gender-affirming hormones on prostate cancer risk and development is unknown,” Nik-Ahd said.

In a 2023 study in JAMA, Nik-Ahd and colleagues identified 155 cases of prostate cancer in transgender women within the VHA (about 14 cases per year) from 2000 to 2022. Of these patients, 116 had never used estrogen, while 17 had used it previously and 22 used it at diagnosis.

The median age of patients was 61 years, 88% identified as White, and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.8 ng/mL. “Given estimates of 10,000 transgender women in the US Department of Veterans Affairs, 33 cases per year would be expected. Instead, only about 14 per year were observed,” the researchers wrote. “Lower rates may stem from less PSA screening owing to barriers including lack of prostate cancer risk awareness or stigma, the suppressive effects of estrogen on prostate cancer development, or prostate cancers being missed in transgender women because of misinterpretation of ‘normal’ PSA levels among those receiving gender-affirming hormone therapies.”

In the presentation, Nik-Ahd said, “PSA density, which is a marker of prostate cancer aggressiveness, was highest in transgender women who were actively on estrogen.”

She noted, “the existing thyrotropin reference ranges, which is what we use to interpret PSA values, are all based on data from cisgender men.” The ranges would be expected to be far lower in transgender women who are taking estrogen, potentially throwing off screening tests, she said, and “ultimately missing clinically significant prostate cancer.”

In the larger picture, there are no specific guidelines about PSA screening in transgender women, she said. 

A recent study published in JAMA by Nik-Ahd and colleagues examined PSA levels in 210 transgender women (mean age 60 years) treated within the VHA from 2000 to 2023. All were aged 40 to 80 years, had received estrogen for at least 6 months (mean duration 4.7 years), and didn’t have prostate cancer diagnoses.

“Median (IQR) PSA was 0.02 (0-0.2) ng/mL and the 95th percentile value was 0.6 ng/mL,” the report found. “PSAs were undetectable in 36% of patients (23% and 49% of PSAs in patients without and with orchiectomy, respectively).”

The researchers write that “the historic cut point of 4 ng/mL, often used as a threshold for further evaluation, is likely far too high a threshold for this population.”

Nik-Ahd noted, “clinicians should interpret PSA values in transgender women on estrogen with extreme caution. In this population, normal might actually not be normal, and a value that is considered normal might be very abnormal for somebody who is on estrogen. If you're unsure of whether a PSA value is appropriate for a transgender woman on estrogen, refer that patient to a urologist so they can undergo further evaluation.”

Farnoosh Nik-Ahd discloses consulting for Janssen.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care for about 10,000 transgender women, and clinicians must understand their distinctive needs for prostate cancer screening, a urologist told cancer specialists during a presentation at the 2024 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology in Atlanta.

Even if they’ve undergone gender reassignment surgery, “all transgender women still have a prostate, so therefore they remain at risk of prostate cancer and could still be considered for prostate cancer screening,” said Farnoosh Nik-Ahd, MD, a resident physician at the University of California San Francisco. However, “clinicians and patients may not be aware of prostate cancer risk, so that they may not think [of screening] transgender women.”

Nik-Ahd also noted another complication: The results of prostate screening tests may be misleading in this population.

Transgender women were born biologically male but now identify as female. These individuals may have undergone gender reassignment surgery to remove male genitalia, but the procedures do not remove the prostate. They also might be taking estrogen therapy. “Prostate cancer is a hormonally driven cancer, and the exact impact of gender-affirming hormones on prostate cancer risk and development is unknown,” Nik-Ahd said.

In a 2023 study in JAMA, Nik-Ahd and colleagues identified 155 cases of prostate cancer in transgender women within the VHA (about 14 cases per year) from 2000 to 2022. Of these patients, 116 had never used estrogen, while 17 had used it previously and 22 used it at diagnosis.

The median age of patients was 61 years, 88% identified as White, and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.8 ng/mL. “Given estimates of 10,000 transgender women in the US Department of Veterans Affairs, 33 cases per year would be expected. Instead, only about 14 per year were observed,” the researchers wrote. “Lower rates may stem from less PSA screening owing to barriers including lack of prostate cancer risk awareness or stigma, the suppressive effects of estrogen on prostate cancer development, or prostate cancers being missed in transgender women because of misinterpretation of ‘normal’ PSA levels among those receiving gender-affirming hormone therapies.”

In the presentation, Nik-Ahd said, “PSA density, which is a marker of prostate cancer aggressiveness, was highest in transgender women who were actively on estrogen.”

She noted, “the existing thyrotropin reference ranges, which is what we use to interpret PSA values, are all based on data from cisgender men.” The ranges would be expected to be far lower in transgender women who are taking estrogen, potentially throwing off screening tests, she said, and “ultimately missing clinically significant prostate cancer.”

In the larger picture, there are no specific guidelines about PSA screening in transgender women, she said. 

A recent study published in JAMA by Nik-Ahd and colleagues examined PSA levels in 210 transgender women (mean age 60 years) treated within the VHA from 2000 to 2023. All were aged 40 to 80 years, had received estrogen for at least 6 months (mean duration 4.7 years), and didn’t have prostate cancer diagnoses.

“Median (IQR) PSA was 0.02 (0-0.2) ng/mL and the 95th percentile value was 0.6 ng/mL,” the report found. “PSAs were undetectable in 36% of patients (23% and 49% of PSAs in patients without and with orchiectomy, respectively).”

The researchers write that “the historic cut point of 4 ng/mL, often used as a threshold for further evaluation, is likely far too high a threshold for this population.”

Nik-Ahd noted, “clinicians should interpret PSA values in transgender women on estrogen with extreme caution. In this population, normal might actually not be normal, and a value that is considered normal might be very abnormal for somebody who is on estrogen. If you're unsure of whether a PSA value is appropriate for a transgender woman on estrogen, refer that patient to a urologist so they can undergo further evaluation.”

Farnoosh Nik-Ahd discloses consulting for Janssen.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care for about 10,000 transgender women, and clinicians must understand their distinctive needs for prostate cancer screening, a urologist told cancer specialists during a presentation at the 2024 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology in Atlanta.

Even if they’ve undergone gender reassignment surgery, “all transgender women still have a prostate, so therefore they remain at risk of prostate cancer and could still be considered for prostate cancer screening,” said Farnoosh Nik-Ahd, MD, a resident physician at the University of California San Francisco. However, “clinicians and patients may not be aware of prostate cancer risk, so that they may not think [of screening] transgender women.”

Nik-Ahd also noted another complication: The results of prostate screening tests may be misleading in this population.

Transgender women were born biologically male but now identify as female. These individuals may have undergone gender reassignment surgery to remove male genitalia, but the procedures do not remove the prostate. They also might be taking estrogen therapy. “Prostate cancer is a hormonally driven cancer, and the exact impact of gender-affirming hormones on prostate cancer risk and development is unknown,” Nik-Ahd said.

In a 2023 study in JAMA, Nik-Ahd and colleagues identified 155 cases of prostate cancer in transgender women within the VHA (about 14 cases per year) from 2000 to 2022. Of these patients, 116 had never used estrogen, while 17 had used it previously and 22 used it at diagnosis.

The median age of patients was 61 years, 88% identified as White, and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.8 ng/mL. “Given estimates of 10,000 transgender women in the US Department of Veterans Affairs, 33 cases per year would be expected. Instead, only about 14 per year were observed,” the researchers wrote. “Lower rates may stem from less PSA screening owing to barriers including lack of prostate cancer risk awareness or stigma, the suppressive effects of estrogen on prostate cancer development, or prostate cancers being missed in transgender women because of misinterpretation of ‘normal’ PSA levels among those receiving gender-affirming hormone therapies.”

In the presentation, Nik-Ahd said, “PSA density, which is a marker of prostate cancer aggressiveness, was highest in transgender women who were actively on estrogen.”

She noted, “the existing thyrotropin reference ranges, which is what we use to interpret PSA values, are all based on data from cisgender men.” The ranges would be expected to be far lower in transgender women who are taking estrogen, potentially throwing off screening tests, she said, and “ultimately missing clinically significant prostate cancer.”

In the larger picture, there are no specific guidelines about PSA screening in transgender women, she said. 

A recent study published in JAMA by Nik-Ahd and colleagues examined PSA levels in 210 transgender women (mean age 60 years) treated within the VHA from 2000 to 2023. All were aged 40 to 80 years, had received estrogen for at least 6 months (mean duration 4.7 years), and didn’t have prostate cancer diagnoses.

“Median (IQR) PSA was 0.02 (0-0.2) ng/mL and the 95th percentile value was 0.6 ng/mL,” the report found. “PSAs were undetectable in 36% of patients (23% and 49% of PSAs in patients without and with orchiectomy, respectively).”

The researchers write that “the historic cut point of 4 ng/mL, often used as a threshold for further evaluation, is likely far too high a threshold for this population.”

Nik-Ahd noted, “clinicians should interpret PSA values in transgender women on estrogen with extreme caution. In this population, normal might actually not be normal, and a value that is considered normal might be very abnormal for somebody who is on estrogen. If you're unsure of whether a PSA value is appropriate for a transgender woman on estrogen, refer that patient to a urologist so they can undergo further evaluation.”

Farnoosh Nik-Ahd discloses consulting for Janssen.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

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

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

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

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

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

As the deadline nears for a Montana healthcare system to pay what has been called a “jaw-dropping” settlement of nearly $11 million dollars to resolve an alleged violation of the False Claims Act, the legal troubles for the oncologist at the center of the case are ongoing and escalating.

On August 26, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana and other agencies announced the settlement agreement with St. Peter’s Health, a nonprofit healthcare system in Helena, to resolve allegations that it submitted “false claims for payments to federal health care programs for services performed by an oncology doctor.”

More specifically, the government contended that St. Peter’s Health allegedly violated the False Claims Act by “knowingly submitting” upcoded and nonpayable claims from the oncologist to the Federal Health Care Program.

“This settlement would not have been possible without the cooperation of St. Peter’s Health, who voluntarily disclosed the misconduct and cooperated with federal investigators to identify the problem and amount of false billing,” said US Attorney Jesse Laslovich in a press release announcing the settlement.

On the same day, the US Attorney’s Office also filed a civil complaint against the oncologist Thomas Weiner, MD, accusing him of “false health care claims and improper prescribing of controlled substances.” Among the numerous allegations, the civil complaint specifies that Dr. Weiner used his position as the chief medical oncologist at St. Peter’s Health “to order medically unnecessary treatment,” including chemotherapy, blood tests, and imaging, as well as “knowingly falsified records” to double bill for office visits.
 

When It Began

The legal troubles for Dr. Weiner, now 61, started about 4 years ago. Dr. Weiner, who was the sole oncologist at St. Peter’s Health and worked there for 24 years, was suspended in October 2020 and then fired in November 2020 for allegedly providing unnecessary treatments and failing to refer patients to other specialists for care, among other claims. 

“The magnitude of Dr. Weiner’s violations is staggering,” St. Peter’s CEO, Wade Johnson, had said in a December 2020 press statement.

At the time, Dr. Weiner had filed a lawsuit against St. Peter’s Health, claiming he was denied due process and seeking damages and a jury trial. Dr. Weiner’s lead lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said it was hard to believe that Dr. Weiner had suddenly become a danger to patients after more than 2 decades on the job. 

Before 2020, Dr. Weiner had a clean record with Montana’s Board of Medical Examiners and had never been the subject of an internal investigation related to quality of care, according to his lawyers. He also served on St. Peter’s board of directors and as chief of medical staff.

Dr. Weiner’s exit from St. Peter’s in 2020 led to an outpouring of support from former patients and community members who formed the Facebook group, “ We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner.” The group soon grew to almost 4000 people.

Four years later, despite the new legal developments, community support for Dr. Weiner has held strong. Supporters continue to have regular rallies outside St. Peter’s Health as well as post messages and personal stories on two Facebook groups now devoted to the cause. 

John Larson, 76, a Helena resident who was treated by Dr. Weiner, echoed a common sentiment from supporters. “I’m completely certain that Tom Weiner is not guilty of what the government is now involved in charging him with,” Dr. Larson said in an interview.
 

$10.8 Million: ‘It’s a Big Number’

At the press conference announcing the recent settlement, Mr. Laslovich recalled a participant describe the total as jaw-dropping, he said in an interview. While there haven’t been many such recent cases in the district, he agreed it’s a big number. The only other recent case he could remember was a 2018 settlement in Kalispell for $24 million. 

The current settlement contends that St. Peter’s Health submitted false claims for payments to federal health care programs related to services performed and referred by Weiner. The infractions allegedly occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020. 

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), St. Peter Health’s “knew, or should have known,” that the oncologist submitted claims for office visits that were coded at a higher level of service than was performed — ie upcoded claims — or did not meet the requirements of a significant, separately identifiable service when performed on the same day chemotherapy was administered — ie non-payable claims. 

The DOJ contended that the healthcare system violated the False Claims Act “by knowingly submitting the upcoded and non-payable” claims to the Federal Health Care Programs. And, as a result, St. Peter’s compensated the oncologist with a salary based on the false claims.

“We had documents showing some of the claims that were being submitted were being done because the doctor wanted more in compensation and of course you can’t do that,” Laslovich said. “For me, the message to providers, and I said this during our press conference, is that coding is critical.” 

“The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” the US Attorney’s Office press release clarified, and “there has been no determination of liability.” 

The leadership at St. Peter’s Health issued a press release on August 27, stating it relied on Dr. Weiner’s medical record documentation and billing certification, though declined to comment further on the settlement 

Bob Wade, a partner at Nelson Mullins, Nashville, Tennessee, and lead outside counsel representing St. Peter’s Health on the settlement, said in an interview that the quality issue was first identified in fall 2020. 

“I first conducted a fair market value review for their entire system and noted that he [Weiner] was an extreme outlier with regard to his productivity,” Mr. Wade said.

In a separate statement, Mr. Wade praised the integrity of the health system, saying, “when the medical record documentation and medical necessity issues related to Dr. Weiner were identified, my client, St. Peter’s Health, through the Board and Executive Leadership took decisive action and authorized me to self-report to the Office of Inspector General and Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services and fully cooperated with the Department of Justice to reach an amicable settlement.”

Dr. Weiner still faces legal issues. According to the recent civil complaint filed against Weiner, the oncologist allegedly ordered “medically unnecessary treatments” for patients, “knowingly falsified records to double bill for patient office visits,” and “directed these false claims to increase his personal income, with little regard for the potential patient harm his conduct created.”

The complaint goes on to note that Dr. Weiner saw 50-70 patients a day — about four to five times more than most oncologists see in a given day. He allegedly wanted this schedule, the civil complaint said, “because it maximized his income.” 

The civil complaint seeks treble damages, which is triple the actual damages awarded to the plaintiff, as well as civil penalties.

The Montana Board of Medical Examiners shows Dr. Weiner’s license as active, expiring March 31, 2025. 
 

A Community’s Support 

Over the past 4 years, Dr. Weiner has encountered strong, continued support from the community.

Rhonda Good, a Helena resident since 2002, is one of the nearly 4000 members of the “We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner” public Facebook group. Her son was treated for cancer by Dr. Weiner and is doing well. 

Like other residents, she has strong opinions about the settlement.

“My feeling was, St. Peter’s Health, by settling, basically admitted that if they went to court, they wouldn’t be able to defend their billing procedures and so they settled out of court and that probably saved them money,” she said. “Since I have lived here, St. Peter’s Health billing has been a topic of conversation. And it is not a good conversation.”

Dayna Schwartz, 58, founded a private Facebook support group for Weiner, which she said has about 730 members. 

Ms. Schwartz believes the doctor was set up and she plans to continue the weekly rallies. Those who show up, she said, are only a fraction of the supporters. 

“A lot of the staunch supporters maintain a low profile,” she said, as the healthcare system employs more than 1700 residents.

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

As the deadline nears for a Montana healthcare system to pay what has been called a “jaw-dropping” settlement of nearly $11 million dollars to resolve an alleged violation of the False Claims Act, the legal troubles for the oncologist at the center of the case are ongoing and escalating.

On August 26, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana and other agencies announced the settlement agreement with St. Peter’s Health, a nonprofit healthcare system in Helena, to resolve allegations that it submitted “false claims for payments to federal health care programs for services performed by an oncology doctor.”

More specifically, the government contended that St. Peter’s Health allegedly violated the False Claims Act by “knowingly submitting” upcoded and nonpayable claims from the oncologist to the Federal Health Care Program.

“This settlement would not have been possible without the cooperation of St. Peter’s Health, who voluntarily disclosed the misconduct and cooperated with federal investigators to identify the problem and amount of false billing,” said US Attorney Jesse Laslovich in a press release announcing the settlement.

On the same day, the US Attorney’s Office also filed a civil complaint against the oncologist Thomas Weiner, MD, accusing him of “false health care claims and improper prescribing of controlled substances.” Among the numerous allegations, the civil complaint specifies that Dr. Weiner used his position as the chief medical oncologist at St. Peter’s Health “to order medically unnecessary treatment,” including chemotherapy, blood tests, and imaging, as well as “knowingly falsified records” to double bill for office visits.
 

When It Began

The legal troubles for Dr. Weiner, now 61, started about 4 years ago. Dr. Weiner, who was the sole oncologist at St. Peter’s Health and worked there for 24 years, was suspended in October 2020 and then fired in November 2020 for allegedly providing unnecessary treatments and failing to refer patients to other specialists for care, among other claims. 

“The magnitude of Dr. Weiner’s violations is staggering,” St. Peter’s CEO, Wade Johnson, had said in a December 2020 press statement.

At the time, Dr. Weiner had filed a lawsuit against St. Peter’s Health, claiming he was denied due process and seeking damages and a jury trial. Dr. Weiner’s lead lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said it was hard to believe that Dr. Weiner had suddenly become a danger to patients after more than 2 decades on the job. 

Before 2020, Dr. Weiner had a clean record with Montana’s Board of Medical Examiners and had never been the subject of an internal investigation related to quality of care, according to his lawyers. He also served on St. Peter’s board of directors and as chief of medical staff.

Dr. Weiner’s exit from St. Peter’s in 2020 led to an outpouring of support from former patients and community members who formed the Facebook group, “ We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner.” The group soon grew to almost 4000 people.

Four years later, despite the new legal developments, community support for Dr. Weiner has held strong. Supporters continue to have regular rallies outside St. Peter’s Health as well as post messages and personal stories on two Facebook groups now devoted to the cause. 

John Larson, 76, a Helena resident who was treated by Dr. Weiner, echoed a common sentiment from supporters. “I’m completely certain that Tom Weiner is not guilty of what the government is now involved in charging him with,” Dr. Larson said in an interview.
 

$10.8 Million: ‘It’s a Big Number’

At the press conference announcing the recent settlement, Mr. Laslovich recalled a participant describe the total as jaw-dropping, he said in an interview. While there haven’t been many such recent cases in the district, he agreed it’s a big number. The only other recent case he could remember was a 2018 settlement in Kalispell for $24 million. 

The current settlement contends that St. Peter’s Health submitted false claims for payments to federal health care programs related to services performed and referred by Weiner. The infractions allegedly occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020. 

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), St. Peter Health’s “knew, or should have known,” that the oncologist submitted claims for office visits that were coded at a higher level of service than was performed — ie upcoded claims — or did not meet the requirements of a significant, separately identifiable service when performed on the same day chemotherapy was administered — ie non-payable claims. 

The DOJ contended that the healthcare system violated the False Claims Act “by knowingly submitting the upcoded and non-payable” claims to the Federal Health Care Programs. And, as a result, St. Peter’s compensated the oncologist with a salary based on the false claims.

“We had documents showing some of the claims that were being submitted were being done because the doctor wanted more in compensation and of course you can’t do that,” Laslovich said. “For me, the message to providers, and I said this during our press conference, is that coding is critical.” 

“The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” the US Attorney’s Office press release clarified, and “there has been no determination of liability.” 

The leadership at St. Peter’s Health issued a press release on August 27, stating it relied on Dr. Weiner’s medical record documentation and billing certification, though declined to comment further on the settlement 

Bob Wade, a partner at Nelson Mullins, Nashville, Tennessee, and lead outside counsel representing St. Peter’s Health on the settlement, said in an interview that the quality issue was first identified in fall 2020. 

“I first conducted a fair market value review for their entire system and noted that he [Weiner] was an extreme outlier with regard to his productivity,” Mr. Wade said.

In a separate statement, Mr. Wade praised the integrity of the health system, saying, “when the medical record documentation and medical necessity issues related to Dr. Weiner were identified, my client, St. Peter’s Health, through the Board and Executive Leadership took decisive action and authorized me to self-report to the Office of Inspector General and Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services and fully cooperated with the Department of Justice to reach an amicable settlement.”

Dr. Weiner still faces legal issues. According to the recent civil complaint filed against Weiner, the oncologist allegedly ordered “medically unnecessary treatments” for patients, “knowingly falsified records to double bill for patient office visits,” and “directed these false claims to increase his personal income, with little regard for the potential patient harm his conduct created.”

The complaint goes on to note that Dr. Weiner saw 50-70 patients a day — about four to five times more than most oncologists see in a given day. He allegedly wanted this schedule, the civil complaint said, “because it maximized his income.” 

The civil complaint seeks treble damages, which is triple the actual damages awarded to the plaintiff, as well as civil penalties.

The Montana Board of Medical Examiners shows Dr. Weiner’s license as active, expiring March 31, 2025. 
 

A Community’s Support 

Over the past 4 years, Dr. Weiner has encountered strong, continued support from the community.

Rhonda Good, a Helena resident since 2002, is one of the nearly 4000 members of the “We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner” public Facebook group. Her son was treated for cancer by Dr. Weiner and is doing well. 

Like other residents, she has strong opinions about the settlement.

“My feeling was, St. Peter’s Health, by settling, basically admitted that if they went to court, they wouldn’t be able to defend their billing procedures and so they settled out of court and that probably saved them money,” she said. “Since I have lived here, St. Peter’s Health billing has been a topic of conversation. And it is not a good conversation.”

Dayna Schwartz, 58, founded a private Facebook support group for Weiner, which she said has about 730 members. 

Ms. Schwartz believes the doctor was set up and she plans to continue the weekly rallies. Those who show up, she said, are only a fraction of the supporters. 

“A lot of the staunch supporters maintain a low profile,” she said, as the healthcare system employs more than 1700 residents.

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

As the deadline nears for a Montana healthcare system to pay what has been called a “jaw-dropping” settlement of nearly $11 million dollars to resolve an alleged violation of the False Claims Act, the legal troubles for the oncologist at the center of the case are ongoing and escalating.

On August 26, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana and other agencies announced the settlement agreement with St. Peter’s Health, a nonprofit healthcare system in Helena, to resolve allegations that it submitted “false claims for payments to federal health care programs for services performed by an oncology doctor.”

More specifically, the government contended that St. Peter’s Health allegedly violated the False Claims Act by “knowingly submitting” upcoded and nonpayable claims from the oncologist to the Federal Health Care Program.

“This settlement would not have been possible without the cooperation of St. Peter’s Health, who voluntarily disclosed the misconduct and cooperated with federal investigators to identify the problem and amount of false billing,” said US Attorney Jesse Laslovich in a press release announcing the settlement.

On the same day, the US Attorney’s Office also filed a civil complaint against the oncologist Thomas Weiner, MD, accusing him of “false health care claims and improper prescribing of controlled substances.” Among the numerous allegations, the civil complaint specifies that Dr. Weiner used his position as the chief medical oncologist at St. Peter’s Health “to order medically unnecessary treatment,” including chemotherapy, blood tests, and imaging, as well as “knowingly falsified records” to double bill for office visits.
 

When It Began

The legal troubles for Dr. Weiner, now 61, started about 4 years ago. Dr. Weiner, who was the sole oncologist at St. Peter’s Health and worked there for 24 years, was suspended in October 2020 and then fired in November 2020 for allegedly providing unnecessary treatments and failing to refer patients to other specialists for care, among other claims. 

“The magnitude of Dr. Weiner’s violations is staggering,” St. Peter’s CEO, Wade Johnson, had said in a December 2020 press statement.

At the time, Dr. Weiner had filed a lawsuit against St. Peter’s Health, claiming he was denied due process and seeking damages and a jury trial. Dr. Weiner’s lead lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said it was hard to believe that Dr. Weiner had suddenly become a danger to patients after more than 2 decades on the job. 

Before 2020, Dr. Weiner had a clean record with Montana’s Board of Medical Examiners and had never been the subject of an internal investigation related to quality of care, according to his lawyers. He also served on St. Peter’s board of directors and as chief of medical staff.

Dr. Weiner’s exit from St. Peter’s in 2020 led to an outpouring of support from former patients and community members who formed the Facebook group, “ We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner.” The group soon grew to almost 4000 people.

Four years later, despite the new legal developments, community support for Dr. Weiner has held strong. Supporters continue to have regular rallies outside St. Peter’s Health as well as post messages and personal stories on two Facebook groups now devoted to the cause. 

John Larson, 76, a Helena resident who was treated by Dr. Weiner, echoed a common sentiment from supporters. “I’m completely certain that Tom Weiner is not guilty of what the government is now involved in charging him with,” Dr. Larson said in an interview.
 

$10.8 Million: ‘It’s a Big Number’

At the press conference announcing the recent settlement, Mr. Laslovich recalled a participant describe the total as jaw-dropping, he said in an interview. While there haven’t been many such recent cases in the district, he agreed it’s a big number. The only other recent case he could remember was a 2018 settlement in Kalispell for $24 million. 

The current settlement contends that St. Peter’s Health submitted false claims for payments to federal health care programs related to services performed and referred by Weiner. The infractions allegedly occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020. 

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), St. Peter Health’s “knew, or should have known,” that the oncologist submitted claims for office visits that were coded at a higher level of service than was performed — ie upcoded claims — or did not meet the requirements of a significant, separately identifiable service when performed on the same day chemotherapy was administered — ie non-payable claims. 

The DOJ contended that the healthcare system violated the False Claims Act “by knowingly submitting the upcoded and non-payable” claims to the Federal Health Care Programs. And, as a result, St. Peter’s compensated the oncologist with a salary based on the false claims.

“We had documents showing some of the claims that were being submitted were being done because the doctor wanted more in compensation and of course you can’t do that,” Laslovich said. “For me, the message to providers, and I said this during our press conference, is that coding is critical.” 

“The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” the US Attorney’s Office press release clarified, and “there has been no determination of liability.” 

The leadership at St. Peter’s Health issued a press release on August 27, stating it relied on Dr. Weiner’s medical record documentation and billing certification, though declined to comment further on the settlement 

Bob Wade, a partner at Nelson Mullins, Nashville, Tennessee, and lead outside counsel representing St. Peter’s Health on the settlement, said in an interview that the quality issue was first identified in fall 2020. 

“I first conducted a fair market value review for their entire system and noted that he [Weiner] was an extreme outlier with regard to his productivity,” Mr. Wade said.

In a separate statement, Mr. Wade praised the integrity of the health system, saying, “when the medical record documentation and medical necessity issues related to Dr. Weiner were identified, my client, St. Peter’s Health, through the Board and Executive Leadership took decisive action and authorized me to self-report to the Office of Inspector General and Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services and fully cooperated with the Department of Justice to reach an amicable settlement.”

Dr. Weiner still faces legal issues. According to the recent civil complaint filed against Weiner, the oncologist allegedly ordered “medically unnecessary treatments” for patients, “knowingly falsified records to double bill for patient office visits,” and “directed these false claims to increase his personal income, with little regard for the potential patient harm his conduct created.”

The complaint goes on to note that Dr. Weiner saw 50-70 patients a day — about four to five times more than most oncologists see in a given day. He allegedly wanted this schedule, the civil complaint said, “because it maximized his income.” 

The civil complaint seeks treble damages, which is triple the actual damages awarded to the plaintiff, as well as civil penalties.

The Montana Board of Medical Examiners shows Dr. Weiner’s license as active, expiring March 31, 2025. 
 

A Community’s Support 

Over the past 4 years, Dr. Weiner has encountered strong, continued support from the community.

Rhonda Good, a Helena resident since 2002, is one of the nearly 4000 members of the “We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner” public Facebook group. Her son was treated for cancer by Dr. Weiner and is doing well. 

Like other residents, she has strong opinions about the settlement.

“My feeling was, St. Peter’s Health, by settling, basically admitted that if they went to court, they wouldn’t be able to defend their billing procedures and so they settled out of court and that probably saved them money,” she said. “Since I have lived here, St. Peter’s Health billing has been a topic of conversation. And it is not a good conversation.”

Dayna Schwartz, 58, founded a private Facebook support group for Weiner, which she said has about 730 members. 

Ms. Schwartz believes the doctor was set up and she plans to continue the weekly rallies. Those who show up, she said, are only a fraction of the supporters. 

“A lot of the staunch supporters maintain a low profile,” she said, as the healthcare system employs more than 1700 residents.

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

Background

Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.

Results

Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.

Background

Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.

Results

Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.

Background

Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.

Results

Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.