AVAHO

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected approval of Astellas’s investigational gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer agent zolbetuximab owing to manufacturing issues, the company announced January 8.

The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.

The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release. 

Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.

Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone. 

If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected approval of Astellas’s investigational gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer agent zolbetuximab owing to manufacturing issues, the company announced January 8.

The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.

The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release. 

Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.

Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone. 

If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected approval of Astellas’s investigational gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer agent zolbetuximab owing to manufacturing issues, the company announced January 8.

The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.

The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release. 

Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.

Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone. 

If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

Surgery or radiation for advanced prostate cancer may improve survival but at the cost of treatment-related adverse effects, including gastrointestinal (GI) as well as sexual and urinary conditions, that may persist for years, a study of US veterans showed.

METHODOLOGY:

Recent evidence suggested that in men with advanced prostate cancer, local therapy with radical prostatectomy or radiation may improve survival outcomes; however, data on the long-term side effects from these local options were limited.

The retrospective cohort included 5502 men (mean age, 68 years) diagnosed with advanced (T4, N1, and/or M1) prostate cancer.

A total of 1705 men (31%) received initial local treatment, consisting of radical prostatectomy, (55%), radiation (39%), or both (5.6%), while 3797 (69%) opted for initial nonlocal treatment (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both). 

The main outcomes were treatment-related adverse effects, including GI, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and urinary symptoms, assessed at three timepoints after initial treatment — up to 1 year, between 1 and 2 years, and between 2 and 5 years.

TAKEAWAY:

Overall, 916 men (75%) who had initial local treatment and 897 men (67%) with initial nonlocal therapy reported at least one adverse condition up to 5 years after initial treatment.

In the first year after initial treatment, local therapy was associated with a higher prevalence of GI (9% vs 3%), pain (60% vs 38%), sexual (37% vs 8%), and urinary (46.5% vs 18%) conditions. Men receiving local therapy were more likely to experience GI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.08), pain (aOR, 1.57), sexual (aOR, 2.96), and urinary (aOR, 2.25) conditions.

Between 2 and 5 years after local therapy, certain conditions remained more prevalent — 7.8% vs 4.2% for GI, 40% vs 13% for sexual, and 40.5% vs 26% for urinary issues. Men receiving local vs nonlocal therapy were more likely to experience GI (aOR, 2.39), sexual (aOR, 3.36), and urinary (aOR, 1.39) issues over the long term.

The researchers found no difference in the prevalence of constitutional conditions such as hot flashes (36.5% vs 34.4%) in the first year following initial local or nonlocal therapy. However, local treatment followed by any secondary treatment was associated with a higher likelihood of developing constitutional conditions at 1-2 years (aOR, 1.50) and 2-5 years (aOR, 1.78) after initial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that patients and clinicians should consider the adverse effects of local treatment” alongside the potential for enhanced survival when making treatment decisions in the setting of advanced prostate cancer, the authors explained. Careful informed decision-making by both patients and practitioners is especially important because “there are currently no established guidelines regarding the use of local treatment among men with advanced prostate cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted that the study was limited by its retrospective design. Men who received local treatment were, on average, younger; older or lesser healthy patients who received local treatment may experience worse adverse effects than observed in the study. The study was limited to US veterans.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US Department of Defense. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Surgery or radiation for advanced prostate cancer may improve survival but at the cost of treatment-related adverse effects, including gastrointestinal (GI) as well as sexual and urinary conditions, that may persist for years, a study of US veterans showed.

METHODOLOGY:

Recent evidence suggested that in men with advanced prostate cancer, local therapy with radical prostatectomy or radiation may improve survival outcomes; however, data on the long-term side effects from these local options were limited.

The retrospective cohort included 5502 men (mean age, 68 years) diagnosed with advanced (T4, N1, and/or M1) prostate cancer.

A total of 1705 men (31%) received initial local treatment, consisting of radical prostatectomy, (55%), radiation (39%), or both (5.6%), while 3797 (69%) opted for initial nonlocal treatment (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both). 

The main outcomes were treatment-related adverse effects, including GI, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and urinary symptoms, assessed at three timepoints after initial treatment — up to 1 year, between 1 and 2 years, and between 2 and 5 years.

TAKEAWAY:

Overall, 916 men (75%) who had initial local treatment and 897 men (67%) with initial nonlocal therapy reported at least one adverse condition up to 5 years after initial treatment.

In the first year after initial treatment, local therapy was associated with a higher prevalence of GI (9% vs 3%), pain (60% vs 38%), sexual (37% vs 8%), and urinary (46.5% vs 18%) conditions. Men receiving local therapy were more likely to experience GI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.08), pain (aOR, 1.57), sexual (aOR, 2.96), and urinary (aOR, 2.25) conditions.

Between 2 and 5 years after local therapy, certain conditions remained more prevalent — 7.8% vs 4.2% for GI, 40% vs 13% for sexual, and 40.5% vs 26% for urinary issues. Men receiving local vs nonlocal therapy were more likely to experience GI (aOR, 2.39), sexual (aOR, 3.36), and urinary (aOR, 1.39) issues over the long term.

The researchers found no difference in the prevalence of constitutional conditions such as hot flashes (36.5% vs 34.4%) in the first year following initial local or nonlocal therapy. However, local treatment followed by any secondary treatment was associated with a higher likelihood of developing constitutional conditions at 1-2 years (aOR, 1.50) and 2-5 years (aOR, 1.78) after initial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that patients and clinicians should consider the adverse effects of local treatment” alongside the potential for enhanced survival when making treatment decisions in the setting of advanced prostate cancer, the authors explained. Careful informed decision-making by both patients and practitioners is especially important because “there are currently no established guidelines regarding the use of local treatment among men with advanced prostate cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted that the study was limited by its retrospective design. Men who received local treatment were, on average, younger; older or lesser healthy patients who received local treatment may experience worse adverse effects than observed in the study. The study was limited to US veterans.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US Department of Defense. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Surgery or radiation for advanced prostate cancer may improve survival but at the cost of treatment-related adverse effects, including gastrointestinal (GI) as well as sexual and urinary conditions, that may persist for years, a study of US veterans showed.

METHODOLOGY:

Recent evidence suggested that in men with advanced prostate cancer, local therapy with radical prostatectomy or radiation may improve survival outcomes; however, data on the long-term side effects from these local options were limited.

The retrospective cohort included 5502 men (mean age, 68 years) diagnosed with advanced (T4, N1, and/or M1) prostate cancer.

A total of 1705 men (31%) received initial local treatment, consisting of radical prostatectomy, (55%), radiation (39%), or both (5.6%), while 3797 (69%) opted for initial nonlocal treatment (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both). 

The main outcomes were treatment-related adverse effects, including GI, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and urinary symptoms, assessed at three timepoints after initial treatment — up to 1 year, between 1 and 2 years, and between 2 and 5 years.

TAKEAWAY:

Overall, 916 men (75%) who had initial local treatment and 897 men (67%) with initial nonlocal therapy reported at least one adverse condition up to 5 years after initial treatment.

In the first year after initial treatment, local therapy was associated with a higher prevalence of GI (9% vs 3%), pain (60% vs 38%), sexual (37% vs 8%), and urinary (46.5% vs 18%) conditions. Men receiving local therapy were more likely to experience GI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.08), pain (aOR, 1.57), sexual (aOR, 2.96), and urinary (aOR, 2.25) conditions.

Between 2 and 5 years after local therapy, certain conditions remained more prevalent — 7.8% vs 4.2% for GI, 40% vs 13% for sexual, and 40.5% vs 26% for urinary issues. Men receiving local vs nonlocal therapy were more likely to experience GI (aOR, 2.39), sexual (aOR, 3.36), and urinary (aOR, 1.39) issues over the long term.

The researchers found no difference in the prevalence of constitutional conditions such as hot flashes (36.5% vs 34.4%) in the first year following initial local or nonlocal therapy. However, local treatment followed by any secondary treatment was associated with a higher likelihood of developing constitutional conditions at 1-2 years (aOR, 1.50) and 2-5 years (aOR, 1.78) after initial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that patients and clinicians should consider the adverse effects of local treatment” alongside the potential for enhanced survival when making treatment decisions in the setting of advanced prostate cancer, the authors explained. Careful informed decision-making by both patients and practitioners is especially important because “there are currently no established guidelines regarding the use of local treatment among men with advanced prostate cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted that the study was limited by its retrospective design. Men who received local treatment were, on average, younger; older or lesser healthy patients who received local treatment may experience worse adverse effects than observed in the study. The study was limited to US veterans.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US Department of Defense. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.