AVAHO

Having grown up with sickle cell disease (SCD), Titilope Fasipe, MD, PhD, codirector of the sickle cell program at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, knows firsthand the physical pain, mental anguish, and dread that have long accompanied this condition. So few child patients lived to reach adulthood that until recently, SCD was considered a pediatric disease.

These days, thanks to transformative advances in treating SCD that have substantially improved survival, Dr. Fasipe’s mission for a new generation of patients and their families is to replace their pain and fear with relief and hope.

Courtesy Racheal Adetayo Artistry

“If you grow up thinking that you’re going to die when you’re 18, it changes your world and your viewpoints, and it impacts your mental health,” she told this news organization.

“We are trying to make sure our children and their families know that there is a new story for sickle cell disease, and you don’t have to use any age as your prediction marker for your lifespan,” Dr. Fasipe said.

SCD, which affects about 100,000 people nationwide, is an inherited blood disorder, with the majority of patients – but not all – being of African descent. This condition is characterized by pain crises, or vaso-occlusive episodes, triggered when cells that are sickled get stuck and impede blood flow. These crises can come on suddenly and range from mild to severe.

Dr. Fasipe was born in Nigeria, where rates of SCD are among the world’s highest. She attended elementary school in the United States, where her father was studying theology, before returning to Nigeria with her family at age 11.

Back in those days, in both nations only about 50% of children with SCD lived beyond their 18th birthday. The survival rates in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa countries continue to be poor. In some more developed regions elsewhere, advances such as universal newborn screening, penicillin prophylaxis, pneumococcal vaccination, stroke screening, and hydroxyurea therapy have yielded substantial improvements, with 95% or more patients with SCD reaching their 18th birthday.

“With measures such as newborn screening, we can immediately start prevention measures in sickle cell disease, such as prevention of infection, which was the number one reason why children were dying,” Dr. Fasipe explained. “With global initiatives, we want that story to be the same in sub-Saharan Africa as well.”
 

Cousin’s early death inspires medical studies

In an essay published by Texas Medical Center that describes her childhood experiences, Dr. Fasipe recounts a pivotal event in her life: The heartbreaking death of her beloved cousin at the age of just 17, from a complication of SCD. This bereavement fueled Dr. Fasipe’s determination to pursue a medical career, to do all that she could to prevent such losses.

“Having sickle cell disease myself wasn’t the trigger that made me become a doctor. But when Femi [her cousin] died, I thought: ‘This shouldn’t happen,’ ” Dr. Fasipe wrote.

When she applied to medical school back in the United States, she declared in her application essay: “I want to cure sickle cell.”

By the time Dr. Fasipe was ready to undertake residency and fellowship applications, her essay had shifted to focus on pediatrics “specifically because I want to reach sickle cell patients before they’ve defined how their lives are going to be,” she said. “I want to give them hope.”
 

Hope for a cure

Fast-forwarding to this point in Dr. Fasipe’s career, she noted that her dream of a cure for SCD is no longer a distant aspiration, thanks to the advent of stem cell transplantation and more recently, gene therapy. These advancements have elevated her hope for a cure to an entirely new level.

Each new treatment comes with caveats. Stem cell transplantation requires a matching donor, leaving the majority of patients ineligible. And while gene therapy eliminates the need for a donor, treatment can reportedly cost nearly $3 million. Nevertheless, Dr. Fasipe emphasized the promise that these new advancements represent.

“The scientists that work in these spaces do appreciate these [accessibility barriers], and the expectation is these therapies will be more accessible with time and effort,” she said. “We’ve got to start somewhere, and it’s exciting that they’re making these early successes.”
 

Advice for clinicians

With firsthand knowledge of how it feels to be the patient, as well as on the clinician side of SCD treatment, Dr. Fasipe advises colleagues on some ways that they can improve care while boosting their patients’ hope:

Speak with empathy

Acknowledge the ‘elephant in the room’; the pain that patients with SCD can experience is real.

“When I’m managing any patient with pain, I first acknowledge the suffering because while we may not understand what that person is going through, acknowledgment is part of showing empathy,” she explains.

Seek out resources

Patients with SCD may typically seek treatment in primary care, where expertise in the disease may be lacking, and general practitioners may feel frustrated that there are limited treatment options.

“If you do find yourself treating a sickle cell disease patient, you may not have all of the answers, but there are good resources, whether it’s a nearby sickle cell disease centers or national guidelines,” Dr. Fasipe said.

Access to treatment

With research, including a recent study, showing that only about 25% of patients with SCD are prescribed hydroxyurea and even fewer – only about 5% – receive more recently approved SCD treatments, clinicians should be proactive by making sure that patients receive needed treatments.

“Clearly medicines like hydroxyurea are not as optimized in this community space as they should be, and then there are newer therapies that families, patients, and even providers may not be aware of, so it is important to be informed of the guidelines and provide all patients with comprehensive, high-quality care,” Dr. Fasipe said.

In the ED, patients with SCD are ‘care-seeking,’ not drug-seeking

Due to the sometimes rapid onset of severe pain symptoms, patients with SCD commonly wind up in the emergency department. In this time of an opioid epidemic, patients too often are suspected of merely seeking drugs.

“Sickle cell disease tends to get lumped into a category of a disease of pain, but pain is subjective and it is difficult to quantify, so unfortunately, patients can be labeled as potentially drug-seeking,” Dr. Fasipe explained, citing an article that detailed this problem.

Consequently, patients may have particularly negative experiences in the emergency department, but the use of resources such as a sickle cell disease point-of-care tool developed by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Hematology can help improve care for those patients.

“One of the [point-of-care recommendations] before even managing the pain is that physicians show compassion by acknowledging the patient’s pain and that they understand why pain with sickle cell disease might look different than other types of pain,” Dr. Fasipe said.
 

Building trust

Encounters such as negative emergency department experiences can perpetuate a deeper issue of distrust between those with SCD and the medical community, which originated in long-held, well-documented racial disparities in health care.

“We know historically and even today that there are difficulties facing our families who are impacted by sickle cell disease, and they are related to structural racism and socioeconomic barriers,” Dr. Fasipe explained.

With these issues in mind, she said, “I refer to sickle cell disease as the medical representation of the Black experience in America.” However, she added, the good news is “we are now doing our best now to improve that.”

Among key efforts in building trust is the inclusion of patients with SCD and their families in as many aspects of research and clinical care as possible.

“In the global health care community, it is imperative to invite people with sickle cell disease and from the community to the decision-making table,” she noted.

“Now, when we’re talking about research for therapies, their expectation is that research trials and other initiatives for sickle cell disease must have input from the community; there are no initiatives for sickle cell disease that do not have input from the community.

“The patients and community members may not be experts on the science of sickle cell, but they’re experts on the lived experience and that’s very important when you’re thinking about new bringing in a new therapy.”
 

Forward momentum

Meanwhile, Dr. Fasipe observed, with the collective, advocacy-driven, forward momentum of the SCD community as a whole, things should only continue to improve.

“Because of the various barriers, some progress may not be immediately around the corner, but I do have confidence that this current generation of children with sickle cell will have improved health equity by the time they reach adulthood,” she said.

“I believe in this future, so I’m doing the work now, and it’s a promise I tell parents: I want your future adult child to live their best life, and we’re working hard to ensure that that becomes their future reality.”
 

Sickle cell disease awareness

September is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers a comprehensive website that clinicians can pass along to their patients, with information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with the disease.

In a comment, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, underscored the uniquely important contributions of people like Dr. Fasipe, in providing inspiration to patients and clinicians alike.

“I have worked with several physicians, nurses, psychologists, and public health specialists who have sickle cell disease,” said Dr. Hsu, who is a pediatric hematologist who also serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“They are ambassadors who have the trust of both patients and healthcare providers,” Dr. Hsu said.

In addition to providing inspiration of resilience, such care providers can serve as “communication bridges,” he explained.

“When they are conference speakers, everybody wants to hear them; when they sit on advisory committees or focus groups, they can help find the compromise or set the priorities.”

“Their impact on the whole sickle cell community is very large,” Dr. Hsu said.

Having grown up with sickle cell disease (SCD), Titilope Fasipe, MD, PhD, codirector of the sickle cell program at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, knows firsthand the physical pain, mental anguish, and dread that have long accompanied this condition. So few child patients lived to reach adulthood that until recently, SCD was considered a pediatric disease.

These days, thanks to transformative advances in treating SCD that have substantially improved survival, Dr. Fasipe’s mission for a new generation of patients and their families is to replace their pain and fear with relief and hope.

Courtesy Racheal Adetayo Artistry

“If you grow up thinking that you’re going to die when you’re 18, it changes your world and your viewpoints, and it impacts your mental health,” she told this news organization.

“We are trying to make sure our children and their families know that there is a new story for sickle cell disease, and you don’t have to use any age as your prediction marker for your lifespan,” Dr. Fasipe said.

SCD, which affects about 100,000 people nationwide, is an inherited blood disorder, with the majority of patients – but not all – being of African descent. This condition is characterized by pain crises, or vaso-occlusive episodes, triggered when cells that are sickled get stuck and impede blood flow. These crises can come on suddenly and range from mild to severe.

Dr. Fasipe was born in Nigeria, where rates of SCD are among the world’s highest. She attended elementary school in the United States, where her father was studying theology, before returning to Nigeria with her family at age 11.

Back in those days, in both nations only about 50% of children with SCD lived beyond their 18th birthday. The survival rates in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa countries continue to be poor. In some more developed regions elsewhere, advances such as universal newborn screening, penicillin prophylaxis, pneumococcal vaccination, stroke screening, and hydroxyurea therapy have yielded substantial improvements, with 95% or more patients with SCD reaching their 18th birthday.

“With measures such as newborn screening, we can immediately start prevention measures in sickle cell disease, such as prevention of infection, which was the number one reason why children were dying,” Dr. Fasipe explained. “With global initiatives, we want that story to be the same in sub-Saharan Africa as well.”
 

Cousin’s early death inspires medical studies

In an essay published by Texas Medical Center that describes her childhood experiences, Dr. Fasipe recounts a pivotal event in her life: The heartbreaking death of her beloved cousin at the age of just 17, from a complication of SCD. This bereavement fueled Dr. Fasipe’s determination to pursue a medical career, to do all that she could to prevent such losses.

“Having sickle cell disease myself wasn’t the trigger that made me become a doctor. But when Femi [her cousin] died, I thought: ‘This shouldn’t happen,’ ” Dr. Fasipe wrote.

When she applied to medical school back in the United States, she declared in her application essay: “I want to cure sickle cell.”

By the time Dr. Fasipe was ready to undertake residency and fellowship applications, her essay had shifted to focus on pediatrics “specifically because I want to reach sickle cell patients before they’ve defined how their lives are going to be,” she said. “I want to give them hope.”
 

Hope for a cure

Fast-forwarding to this point in Dr. Fasipe’s career, she noted that her dream of a cure for SCD is no longer a distant aspiration, thanks to the advent of stem cell transplantation and more recently, gene therapy. These advancements have elevated her hope for a cure to an entirely new level.

Each new treatment comes with caveats. Stem cell transplantation requires a matching donor, leaving the majority of patients ineligible. And while gene therapy eliminates the need for a donor, treatment can reportedly cost nearly $3 million. Nevertheless, Dr. Fasipe emphasized the promise that these new advancements represent.

“The scientists that work in these spaces do appreciate these [accessibility barriers], and the expectation is these therapies will be more accessible with time and effort,” she said. “We’ve got to start somewhere, and it’s exciting that they’re making these early successes.”
 

Advice for clinicians

With firsthand knowledge of how it feels to be the patient, as well as on the clinician side of SCD treatment, Dr. Fasipe advises colleagues on some ways that they can improve care while boosting their patients’ hope:

Speak with empathy

Acknowledge the ‘elephant in the room’; the pain that patients with SCD can experience is real.

“When I’m managing any patient with pain, I first acknowledge the suffering because while we may not understand what that person is going through, acknowledgment is part of showing empathy,” she explains.

Seek out resources

Patients with SCD may typically seek treatment in primary care, where expertise in the disease may be lacking, and general practitioners may feel frustrated that there are limited treatment options.

“If you do find yourself treating a sickle cell disease patient, you may not have all of the answers, but there are good resources, whether it’s a nearby sickle cell disease centers or national guidelines,” Dr. Fasipe said.

Access to treatment

With research, including a recent study, showing that only about 25% of patients with SCD are prescribed hydroxyurea and even fewer – only about 5% – receive more recently approved SCD treatments, clinicians should be proactive by making sure that patients receive needed treatments.

“Clearly medicines like hydroxyurea are not as optimized in this community space as they should be, and then there are newer therapies that families, patients, and even providers may not be aware of, so it is important to be informed of the guidelines and provide all patients with comprehensive, high-quality care,” Dr. Fasipe said.

In the ED, patients with SCD are ‘care-seeking,’ not drug-seeking

Due to the sometimes rapid onset of severe pain symptoms, patients with SCD commonly wind up in the emergency department. In this time of an opioid epidemic, patients too often are suspected of merely seeking drugs.

“Sickle cell disease tends to get lumped into a category of a disease of pain, but pain is subjective and it is difficult to quantify, so unfortunately, patients can be labeled as potentially drug-seeking,” Dr. Fasipe explained, citing an article that detailed this problem.

Consequently, patients may have particularly negative experiences in the emergency department, but the use of resources such as a sickle cell disease point-of-care tool developed by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Hematology can help improve care for those patients.

“One of the [point-of-care recommendations] before even managing the pain is that physicians show compassion by acknowledging the patient’s pain and that they understand why pain with sickle cell disease might look different than other types of pain,” Dr. Fasipe said.
 

Building trust

Encounters such as negative emergency department experiences can perpetuate a deeper issue of distrust between those with SCD and the medical community, which originated in long-held, well-documented racial disparities in health care.

“We know historically and even today that there are difficulties facing our families who are impacted by sickle cell disease, and they are related to structural racism and socioeconomic barriers,” Dr. Fasipe explained.

With these issues in mind, she said, “I refer to sickle cell disease as the medical representation of the Black experience in America.” However, she added, the good news is “we are now doing our best now to improve that.”

Among key efforts in building trust is the inclusion of patients with SCD and their families in as many aspects of research and clinical care as possible.

“In the global health care community, it is imperative to invite people with sickle cell disease and from the community to the decision-making table,” she noted.

“Now, when we’re talking about research for therapies, their expectation is that research trials and other initiatives for sickle cell disease must have input from the community; there are no initiatives for sickle cell disease that do not have input from the community.

“The patients and community members may not be experts on the science of sickle cell, but they’re experts on the lived experience and that’s very important when you’re thinking about new bringing in a new therapy.”
 

Forward momentum

Meanwhile, Dr. Fasipe observed, with the collective, advocacy-driven, forward momentum of the SCD community as a whole, things should only continue to improve.

“Because of the various barriers, some progress may not be immediately around the corner, but I do have confidence that this current generation of children with sickle cell will have improved health equity by the time they reach adulthood,” she said.

“I believe in this future, so I’m doing the work now, and it’s a promise I tell parents: I want your future adult child to live their best life, and we’re working hard to ensure that that becomes their future reality.”
 

Sickle cell disease awareness

September is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers a comprehensive website that clinicians can pass along to their patients, with information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with the disease.

In a comment, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, underscored the uniquely important contributions of people like Dr. Fasipe, in providing inspiration to patients and clinicians alike.

“I have worked with several physicians, nurses, psychologists, and public health specialists who have sickle cell disease,” said Dr. Hsu, who is a pediatric hematologist who also serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“They are ambassadors who have the trust of both patients and healthcare providers,” Dr. Hsu said.

In addition to providing inspiration of resilience, such care providers can serve as “communication bridges,” he explained.

“When they are conference speakers, everybody wants to hear them; when they sit on advisory committees or focus groups, they can help find the compromise or set the priorities.”

“Their impact on the whole sickle cell community is very large,” Dr. Hsu said.

Having grown up with sickle cell disease (SCD), Titilope Fasipe, MD, PhD, codirector of the sickle cell program at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, knows firsthand the physical pain, mental anguish, and dread that have long accompanied this condition. So few child patients lived to reach adulthood that until recently, SCD was considered a pediatric disease.

These days, thanks to transformative advances in treating SCD that have substantially improved survival, Dr. Fasipe’s mission for a new generation of patients and their families is to replace their pain and fear with relief and hope.

Courtesy Racheal Adetayo Artistry

“If you grow up thinking that you’re going to die when you’re 18, it changes your world and your viewpoints, and it impacts your mental health,” she told this news organization.

“We are trying to make sure our children and their families know that there is a new story for sickle cell disease, and you don’t have to use any age as your prediction marker for your lifespan,” Dr. Fasipe said.

SCD, which affects about 100,000 people nationwide, is an inherited blood disorder, with the majority of patients – but not all – being of African descent. This condition is characterized by pain crises, or vaso-occlusive episodes, triggered when cells that are sickled get stuck and impede blood flow. These crises can come on suddenly and range from mild to severe.

Dr. Fasipe was born in Nigeria, where rates of SCD are among the world’s highest. She attended elementary school in the United States, where her father was studying theology, before returning to Nigeria with her family at age 11.

Back in those days, in both nations only about 50% of children with SCD lived beyond their 18th birthday. The survival rates in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa countries continue to be poor. In some more developed regions elsewhere, advances such as universal newborn screening, penicillin prophylaxis, pneumococcal vaccination, stroke screening, and hydroxyurea therapy have yielded substantial improvements, with 95% or more patients with SCD reaching their 18th birthday.

“With measures such as newborn screening, we can immediately start prevention measures in sickle cell disease, such as prevention of infection, which was the number one reason why children were dying,” Dr. Fasipe explained. “With global initiatives, we want that story to be the same in sub-Saharan Africa as well.”
 

Cousin’s early death inspires medical studies

In an essay published by Texas Medical Center that describes her childhood experiences, Dr. Fasipe recounts a pivotal event in her life: The heartbreaking death of her beloved cousin at the age of just 17, from a complication of SCD. This bereavement fueled Dr. Fasipe’s determination to pursue a medical career, to do all that she could to prevent such losses.

“Having sickle cell disease myself wasn’t the trigger that made me become a doctor. But when Femi [her cousin] died, I thought: ‘This shouldn’t happen,’ ” Dr. Fasipe wrote.

When she applied to medical school back in the United States, she declared in her application essay: “I want to cure sickle cell.”

By the time Dr. Fasipe was ready to undertake residency and fellowship applications, her essay had shifted to focus on pediatrics “specifically because I want to reach sickle cell patients before they’ve defined how their lives are going to be,” she said. “I want to give them hope.”
 

Hope for a cure

Fast-forwarding to this point in Dr. Fasipe’s career, she noted that her dream of a cure for SCD is no longer a distant aspiration, thanks to the advent of stem cell transplantation and more recently, gene therapy. These advancements have elevated her hope for a cure to an entirely new level.

Each new treatment comes with caveats. Stem cell transplantation requires a matching donor, leaving the majority of patients ineligible. And while gene therapy eliminates the need for a donor, treatment can reportedly cost nearly $3 million. Nevertheless, Dr. Fasipe emphasized the promise that these new advancements represent.

“The scientists that work in these spaces do appreciate these [accessibility barriers], and the expectation is these therapies will be more accessible with time and effort,” she said. “We’ve got to start somewhere, and it’s exciting that they’re making these early successes.”
 

Advice for clinicians

With firsthand knowledge of how it feels to be the patient, as well as on the clinician side of SCD treatment, Dr. Fasipe advises colleagues on some ways that they can improve care while boosting their patients’ hope:

Speak with empathy

Acknowledge the ‘elephant in the room’; the pain that patients with SCD can experience is real.

“When I’m managing any patient with pain, I first acknowledge the suffering because while we may not understand what that person is going through, acknowledgment is part of showing empathy,” she explains.

Seek out resources

Patients with SCD may typically seek treatment in primary care, where expertise in the disease may be lacking, and general practitioners may feel frustrated that there are limited treatment options.

“If you do find yourself treating a sickle cell disease patient, you may not have all of the answers, but there are good resources, whether it’s a nearby sickle cell disease centers or national guidelines,” Dr. Fasipe said.

Access to treatment

With research, including a recent study, showing that only about 25% of patients with SCD are prescribed hydroxyurea and even fewer – only about 5% – receive more recently approved SCD treatments, clinicians should be proactive by making sure that patients receive needed treatments.

“Clearly medicines like hydroxyurea are not as optimized in this community space as they should be, and then there are newer therapies that families, patients, and even providers may not be aware of, so it is important to be informed of the guidelines and provide all patients with comprehensive, high-quality care,” Dr. Fasipe said.

In the ED, patients with SCD are ‘care-seeking,’ not drug-seeking

Due to the sometimes rapid onset of severe pain symptoms, patients with SCD commonly wind up in the emergency department. In this time of an opioid epidemic, patients too often are suspected of merely seeking drugs.

“Sickle cell disease tends to get lumped into a category of a disease of pain, but pain is subjective and it is difficult to quantify, so unfortunately, patients can be labeled as potentially drug-seeking,” Dr. Fasipe explained, citing an article that detailed this problem.

Consequently, patients may have particularly negative experiences in the emergency department, but the use of resources such as a sickle cell disease point-of-care tool developed by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Hematology can help improve care for those patients.

“One of the [point-of-care recommendations] before even managing the pain is that physicians show compassion by acknowledging the patient’s pain and that they understand why pain with sickle cell disease might look different than other types of pain,” Dr. Fasipe said.
 

Building trust

Encounters such as negative emergency department experiences can perpetuate a deeper issue of distrust between those with SCD and the medical community, which originated in long-held, well-documented racial disparities in health care.

“We know historically and even today that there are difficulties facing our families who are impacted by sickle cell disease, and they are related to structural racism and socioeconomic barriers,” Dr. Fasipe explained.

With these issues in mind, she said, “I refer to sickle cell disease as the medical representation of the Black experience in America.” However, she added, the good news is “we are now doing our best now to improve that.”

Among key efforts in building trust is the inclusion of patients with SCD and their families in as many aspects of research and clinical care as possible.

“In the global health care community, it is imperative to invite people with sickle cell disease and from the community to the decision-making table,” she noted.

“Now, when we’re talking about research for therapies, their expectation is that research trials and other initiatives for sickle cell disease must have input from the community; there are no initiatives for sickle cell disease that do not have input from the community.

“The patients and community members may not be experts on the science of sickle cell, but they’re experts on the lived experience and that’s very important when you’re thinking about new bringing in a new therapy.”
 

Forward momentum

Meanwhile, Dr. Fasipe observed, with the collective, advocacy-driven, forward momentum of the SCD community as a whole, things should only continue to improve.

“Because of the various barriers, some progress may not be immediately around the corner, but I do have confidence that this current generation of children with sickle cell will have improved health equity by the time they reach adulthood,” she said.

“I believe in this future, so I’m doing the work now, and it’s a promise I tell parents: I want your future adult child to live their best life, and we’re working hard to ensure that that becomes their future reality.”
 

Sickle cell disease awareness

September is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers a comprehensive website that clinicians can pass along to their patients, with information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with the disease.

In a comment, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, underscored the uniquely important contributions of people like Dr. Fasipe, in providing inspiration to patients and clinicians alike.

“I have worked with several physicians, nurses, psychologists, and public health specialists who have sickle cell disease,” said Dr. Hsu, who is a pediatric hematologist who also serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“They are ambassadors who have the trust of both patients and healthcare providers,” Dr. Hsu said.

In addition to providing inspiration of resilience, such care providers can serve as “communication bridges,” he explained.

“When they are conference speakers, everybody wants to hear them; when they sit on advisory committees or focus groups, they can help find the compromise or set the priorities.”

“Their impact on the whole sickle cell community is very large,” Dr. Hsu said.

TOPLINE:

Women who continue breast cancer screening after age 70 face a considerable risk for overdiagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Overdiagnosis – the risk of detecting and treating cancers that would never have caused issues in a person’s lifetime – is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening; however, the scope of the problem among older women remains uncertain. 
• To get an idea, investigators linked Medicare claims data with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data for 54,635 women 70 years or older to compare the incidence of breast cancer and breast cancer–specific death among women who continued screening mammography with those who did not.
• The women all had undergone recent screening mammograms and had no history of breast cancer at study entry. Those who had a subsequent mammogram within 3 years were classified as undergoing continued screening while those who did not were classified as not undergoing continued screening.
• Overdiagnosis was defined as the difference in cumulative incidence of breast cancer between screened and unscreened women divided by the cumulative incidence among screened women. 
• Results were adjusted for potential confounders, including age, race, and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over 80% of women 70-84 years old and more than 60% of women 85 years or older continued screening.
• Among women 70-74 years old, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases per 100 screened women vs. 4.2 cases per 100 unscreened women; for women aged 75-84 years old, the cumulative incidence was 4.9 per 100 screened women vs. 2.6 per 100 unscreened women, and for women 85 years and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 vs. 1.3 per 100, respectively.
• Estimates of overdiagnosis ranged from 31% of breast cancer cases among screened women in the 70-74 age group to 54% of cases in the 85 and older group.
• The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in breast cancer–specific death associated with screening in any age or life-expectancy group. Overdiagnosis appeared to be driven by in situ and localized invasive breast cancer, not advanced breast cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

The proportion of older women who continue to receive screening mammograms and may experience breast cancer overdiagnosis is “considerable” and “increases with advancing age and with decreasing life expectancy,” the authors conclude. Given potential benefits and harms of screening in this population, “patient preferences, including risk tolerance, comfort with uncertainty, and willingness to undergo treatment, are important for informing screening decisions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ilana Richman, MD, MHS, of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The definition of screening mammography in the study may have misclassified some diagnostic mammograms as screening. Using a more conservative definition of screening mammogram, which largely accounted for this misclassification, estimates for overdiagnosis were smaller, ranging from 15% of cases in the 70-74 age group to 44% of cases in the 85 and older group. Results could not be adjusted for breast density, family history, and other breast cancer risk factors not captured by the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported funding from Genentech and Johnson & Johnson.

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

TOPLINE:

Women who continue breast cancer screening after age 70 face a considerable risk for overdiagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Overdiagnosis – the risk of detecting and treating cancers that would never have caused issues in a person’s lifetime – is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening; however, the scope of the problem among older women remains uncertain. 
• To get an idea, investigators linked Medicare claims data with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data for 54,635 women 70 years or older to compare the incidence of breast cancer and breast cancer–specific death among women who continued screening mammography with those who did not.
• The women all had undergone recent screening mammograms and had no history of breast cancer at study entry. Those who had a subsequent mammogram within 3 years were classified as undergoing continued screening while those who did not were classified as not undergoing continued screening.
• Overdiagnosis was defined as the difference in cumulative incidence of breast cancer between screened and unscreened women divided by the cumulative incidence among screened women. 
• Results were adjusted for potential confounders, including age, race, and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over 80% of women 70-84 years old and more than 60% of women 85 years or older continued screening.
• Among women 70-74 years old, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases per 100 screened women vs. 4.2 cases per 100 unscreened women; for women aged 75-84 years old, the cumulative incidence was 4.9 per 100 screened women vs. 2.6 per 100 unscreened women, and for women 85 years and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 vs. 1.3 per 100, respectively.
• Estimates of overdiagnosis ranged from 31% of breast cancer cases among screened women in the 70-74 age group to 54% of cases in the 85 and older group.
• The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in breast cancer–specific death associated with screening in any age or life-expectancy group. Overdiagnosis appeared to be driven by in situ and localized invasive breast cancer, not advanced breast cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

The proportion of older women who continue to receive screening mammograms and may experience breast cancer overdiagnosis is “considerable” and “increases with advancing age and with decreasing life expectancy,” the authors conclude. Given potential benefits and harms of screening in this population, “patient preferences, including risk tolerance, comfort with uncertainty, and willingness to undergo treatment, are important for informing screening decisions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ilana Richman, MD, MHS, of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The definition of screening mammography in the study may have misclassified some diagnostic mammograms as screening. Using a more conservative definition of screening mammogram, which largely accounted for this misclassification, estimates for overdiagnosis were smaller, ranging from 15% of cases in the 70-74 age group to 44% of cases in the 85 and older group. Results could not be adjusted for breast density, family history, and other breast cancer risk factors not captured by the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported funding from Genentech and Johnson & Johnson.

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

TOPLINE:

Women who continue breast cancer screening after age 70 face a considerable risk for overdiagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Overdiagnosis – the risk of detecting and treating cancers that would never have caused issues in a person’s lifetime – is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening; however, the scope of the problem among older women remains uncertain. 
• To get an idea, investigators linked Medicare claims data with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data for 54,635 women 70 years or older to compare the incidence of breast cancer and breast cancer–specific death among women who continued screening mammography with those who did not.
• The women all had undergone recent screening mammograms and had no history of breast cancer at study entry. Those who had a subsequent mammogram within 3 years were classified as undergoing continued screening while those who did not were classified as not undergoing continued screening.
• Overdiagnosis was defined as the difference in cumulative incidence of breast cancer between screened and unscreened women divided by the cumulative incidence among screened women. 
• Results were adjusted for potential confounders, including age, race, and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over 80% of women 70-84 years old and more than 60% of women 85 years or older continued screening.
• Among women 70-74 years old, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases per 100 screened women vs. 4.2 cases per 100 unscreened women; for women aged 75-84 years old, the cumulative incidence was 4.9 per 100 screened women vs. 2.6 per 100 unscreened women, and for women 85 years and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 vs. 1.3 per 100, respectively.
• Estimates of overdiagnosis ranged from 31% of breast cancer cases among screened women in the 70-74 age group to 54% of cases in the 85 and older group.
• The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in breast cancer–specific death associated with screening in any age or life-expectancy group. Overdiagnosis appeared to be driven by in situ and localized invasive breast cancer, not advanced breast cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

The proportion of older women who continue to receive screening mammograms and may experience breast cancer overdiagnosis is “considerable” and “increases with advancing age and with decreasing life expectancy,” the authors conclude. Given potential benefits and harms of screening in this population, “patient preferences, including risk tolerance, comfort with uncertainty, and willingness to undergo treatment, are important for informing screening decisions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ilana Richman, MD, MHS, of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The definition of screening mammography in the study may have misclassified some diagnostic mammograms as screening. Using a more conservative definition of screening mammogram, which largely accounted for this misclassification, estimates for overdiagnosis were smaller, ranging from 15% of cases in the 70-74 age group to 44% of cases in the 85 and older group. Results could not be adjusted for breast density, family history, and other breast cancer risk factors not captured by the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported funding from Genentech and Johnson & Johnson.

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

Patients with breast cancer often stay on endocrine therapy for 5-10 years.

For many, however, long-term use is a challenge. Studies show about half of breast cancer patients don’t take their hormone therapy as prescribed, and as many as 40% discontinue treatment early.

Stopping adjuvant endocrine therapy prematurely can have major consequences. These patients are more likely to experience cancer recurrence and to die earlier, research shows.

“Given that suboptimal adjuvant endocrine therapy adherence is common and is associated with breast cancer recurrence and mortality, there is a vital need for effective interventions to promote adherence,” Joanna J. Arch, PhD, from the University of Colorado Boulder, and colleagues write in a recent meta-analysis.

Experts discuss why it’s so challenging for patients to adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy as well as which strategies may help boost long-term use and which likely will not.
 

The adherence problem

To improve adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy, clinicians first need to understand the barriers patients face.

Studies indicate that a host of issues play into long-term adherence. Medication side effects, such as insomnia, fatigue, anxiety, depression, joint pain, and hot flashes, can deter patients from continuing endocrine therapy.

Tamoxifen, in particular, is known for its severe adverse events. Research suggests it may even increase patients’ risk for endometrial cancer and other uterine diseases.

Recent approvals of aromatase inhibitors – such as anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole – have provided patients a tamoxifen alterative, but these agents come with their own issues, which include bone loss and vaginal dryness.

Common and severe side effects that affect adherence “should absolutely be addressed sooner, more frequently, and by any provider, not just the medical oncologist,” said Anna Weiss, MD, a breast cancer surgeon with the Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, N.Y.

Other barriers to long-term use include the burden of managing comorbidities and drug costs as well as patients’ uncertainty about the value of long-term cancer therapy.

The issues that take center stage for individual patients may also vary by age. For older patients, comorbidities, cognitive function, and lack of social support may be key barriers to adherence, while for younger patients, fertility and sexual health issues are more pressing.

Clinicians should especially not underestimate the effects of hormonal suppression on adherence, explained Dr. Weiss, who recently published practice pearls on managing side effects of adjunctive endocrine therapy. “I do believe that we have been ignoring the sexual wellness aspect of breast cancer survivorship care for too long,” she said.
 

An array of fixes needed

Given the array of potential obstacles to endocrine therapy adherence, improving long-term use may be equally complex.

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Arch and colleagues combed the literature for studies exploring a host of strategies to improve endocrine therapy adherence. The team focused on 25 studies involving 367,873 women with breast cancer who were prescribed tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor.

The studies assessed a variety of interventions – disease management and exercise programs to lower side effects, medication reminders via phone or letter to limit missed doses, online educational materials to highlight the importance of adherence, as well as medication changes to reduce drug costs.

Overall, these interventions were of modest benefit in improving adherence. The findings indicate that “a variety of approaches” can be effective, Dr. Arch said.

But, she noted, aside from cost-cutting strategies, “no single approach stood out as more effective than others,” and some studies found minimal or inconsistent benefits to specific interventions.

One analysis, for instance, explored a text message intervention that involved sending patients several texts per week reminding them to take their medication, exercise more, or monitor their side effects. Overall, participants who received text messages missed fewer endocrine therapy doses, compared with those who didn’t – 7.1% versus 17.0% – and for about two-thirds of participants, the text messages motivated lifestyle changes.

Another study included in the meta-analysis, however, found that “twice-weekly text reminders did not improve adherence to aromatase inhibitors.”

Studies in which patients received educational materials about the importance of adherence or how to manage side effects found that effectiveness varied as well. Other analyses indicated that integrating relaxation techniques or other cognitive-behavioral approaches into patient care may have small beneficial effects on adherence.

Dr. Arch’s meta-analysis did, however, find a consistent benefit for cost-cutting interventions. Three large studies reported that medication adherence improved following policy changes that were focused on reducing costs of adjuvant endocrine therapy, either through legislation limiting out-of-pocket costs for oral drugs or by switching to generic formulations.

Xuanzi Qin, PhD, first author on one of the studies, explained that after generic aromatase inhibitor options became available, patients who switched to these options had lower out-of-pocket costs and higher rates of drug adherence.

The take-home message of the study is that “clinicians should know the out-of-pocket costs of the drugs and discuss the costs with patients,” Dr. Qin, of the University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, told this news organization.

Dr. Arch pointed out that although the meta-analysis found a consistent benefit to cost-cutting strategies, that does not necessarily translate to a strong benefit.

And overall, the body of research indicates that “we need to develop and test new strategies and hone existing ones,” Dr. Arch said, “so that we can boost adherence even more and help more women benefit fully from these life-extending medications.”

However, Dr. Weiss explained, seemingly small measures may still make important clinical differences for individual patients, even if studies don’t show a statistically significant impact overall on endocrine therapy adherence.

For Dr. Weiss, “even getting one patient to continue their endocrine therapy is a win in my book.”

Dr. Arch reported a consulting or advisory role with AbbVie/Genentech and Bristol-Meyers Squibb and research funding from NCCN/Astrazeneca. Dr. Weiss reports being on the advisory board for Merck and Myriad. Dr. Qin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with breast cancer often stay on endocrine therapy for 5-10 years.

For many, however, long-term use is a challenge. Studies show about half of breast cancer patients don’t take their hormone therapy as prescribed, and as many as 40% discontinue treatment early.

Stopping adjuvant endocrine therapy prematurely can have major consequences. These patients are more likely to experience cancer recurrence and to die earlier, research shows.

“Given that suboptimal adjuvant endocrine therapy adherence is common and is associated with breast cancer recurrence and mortality, there is a vital need for effective interventions to promote adherence,” Joanna J. Arch, PhD, from the University of Colorado Boulder, and colleagues write in a recent meta-analysis.

Experts discuss why it’s so challenging for patients to adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy as well as which strategies may help boost long-term use and which likely will not.
 

The adherence problem

To improve adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy, clinicians first need to understand the barriers patients face.

Studies indicate that a host of issues play into long-term adherence. Medication side effects, such as insomnia, fatigue, anxiety, depression, joint pain, and hot flashes, can deter patients from continuing endocrine therapy.

Tamoxifen, in particular, is known for its severe adverse events. Research suggests it may even increase patients’ risk for endometrial cancer and other uterine diseases.

Recent approvals of aromatase inhibitors – such as anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole – have provided patients a tamoxifen alterative, but these agents come with their own issues, which include bone loss and vaginal dryness.

Common and severe side effects that affect adherence “should absolutely be addressed sooner, more frequently, and by any provider, not just the medical oncologist,” said Anna Weiss, MD, a breast cancer surgeon with the Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, N.Y.

Other barriers to long-term use include the burden of managing comorbidities and drug costs as well as patients’ uncertainty about the value of long-term cancer therapy.

The issues that take center stage for individual patients may also vary by age. For older patients, comorbidities, cognitive function, and lack of social support may be key barriers to adherence, while for younger patients, fertility and sexual health issues are more pressing.

Clinicians should especially not underestimate the effects of hormonal suppression on adherence, explained Dr. Weiss, who recently published practice pearls on managing side effects of adjunctive endocrine therapy. “I do believe that we have been ignoring the sexual wellness aspect of breast cancer survivorship care for too long,” she said.
 

An array of fixes needed

Given the array of potential obstacles to endocrine therapy adherence, improving long-term use may be equally complex.

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Arch and colleagues combed the literature for studies exploring a host of strategies to improve endocrine therapy adherence. The team focused on 25 studies involving 367,873 women with breast cancer who were prescribed tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor.

The studies assessed a variety of interventions – disease management and exercise programs to lower side effects, medication reminders via phone or letter to limit missed doses, online educational materials to highlight the importance of adherence, as well as medication changes to reduce drug costs.

Overall, these interventions were of modest benefit in improving adherence. The findings indicate that “a variety of approaches” can be effective, Dr. Arch said.

But, she noted, aside from cost-cutting strategies, “no single approach stood out as more effective than others,” and some studies found minimal or inconsistent benefits to specific interventions.

One analysis, for instance, explored a text message intervention that involved sending patients several texts per week reminding them to take their medication, exercise more, or monitor their side effects. Overall, participants who received text messages missed fewer endocrine therapy doses, compared with those who didn’t – 7.1% versus 17.0% – and for about two-thirds of participants, the text messages motivated lifestyle changes.

Another study included in the meta-analysis, however, found that “twice-weekly text reminders did not improve adherence to aromatase inhibitors.”

Studies in which patients received educational materials about the importance of adherence or how to manage side effects found that effectiveness varied as well. Other analyses indicated that integrating relaxation techniques or other cognitive-behavioral approaches into patient care may have small beneficial effects on adherence.

Dr. Arch’s meta-analysis did, however, find a consistent benefit for cost-cutting interventions. Three large studies reported that medication adherence improved following policy changes that were focused on reducing costs of adjuvant endocrine therapy, either through legislation limiting out-of-pocket costs for oral drugs or by switching to generic formulations.

Xuanzi Qin, PhD, first author on one of the studies, explained that after generic aromatase inhibitor options became available, patients who switched to these options had lower out-of-pocket costs and higher rates of drug adherence.

The take-home message of the study is that “clinicians should know the out-of-pocket costs of the drugs and discuss the costs with patients,” Dr. Qin, of the University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, told this news organization.

Dr. Arch pointed out that although the meta-analysis found a consistent benefit to cost-cutting strategies, that does not necessarily translate to a strong benefit.

And overall, the body of research indicates that “we need to develop and test new strategies and hone existing ones,” Dr. Arch said, “so that we can boost adherence even more and help more women benefit fully from these life-extending medications.”

However, Dr. Weiss explained, seemingly small measures may still make important clinical differences for individual patients, even if studies don’t show a statistically significant impact overall on endocrine therapy adherence.

For Dr. Weiss, “even getting one patient to continue their endocrine therapy is a win in my book.”

Dr. Arch reported a consulting or advisory role with AbbVie/Genentech and Bristol-Meyers Squibb and research funding from NCCN/Astrazeneca. Dr. Weiss reports being on the advisory board for Merck and Myriad. Dr. Qin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with breast cancer often stay on endocrine therapy for 5-10 years.

For many, however, long-term use is a challenge. Studies show about half of breast cancer patients don’t take their hormone therapy as prescribed, and as many as 40% discontinue treatment early.

Stopping adjuvant endocrine therapy prematurely can have major consequences. These patients are more likely to experience cancer recurrence and to die earlier, research shows.

“Given that suboptimal adjuvant endocrine therapy adherence is common and is associated with breast cancer recurrence and mortality, there is a vital need for effective interventions to promote adherence,” Joanna J. Arch, PhD, from the University of Colorado Boulder, and colleagues write in a recent meta-analysis.

Experts discuss why it’s so challenging for patients to adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy as well as which strategies may help boost long-term use and which likely will not.
 

The adherence problem

To improve adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy, clinicians first need to understand the barriers patients face.

Studies indicate that a host of issues play into long-term adherence. Medication side effects, such as insomnia, fatigue, anxiety, depression, joint pain, and hot flashes, can deter patients from continuing endocrine therapy.

Tamoxifen, in particular, is known for its severe adverse events. Research suggests it may even increase patients’ risk for endometrial cancer and other uterine diseases.

Recent approvals of aromatase inhibitors – such as anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole – have provided patients a tamoxifen alterative, but these agents come with their own issues, which include bone loss and vaginal dryness.

Common and severe side effects that affect adherence “should absolutely be addressed sooner, more frequently, and by any provider, not just the medical oncologist,” said Anna Weiss, MD, a breast cancer surgeon with the Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, N.Y.

Other barriers to long-term use include the burden of managing comorbidities and drug costs as well as patients’ uncertainty about the value of long-term cancer therapy.

The issues that take center stage for individual patients may also vary by age. For older patients, comorbidities, cognitive function, and lack of social support may be key barriers to adherence, while for younger patients, fertility and sexual health issues are more pressing.

Clinicians should especially not underestimate the effects of hormonal suppression on adherence, explained Dr. Weiss, who recently published practice pearls on managing side effects of adjunctive endocrine therapy. “I do believe that we have been ignoring the sexual wellness aspect of breast cancer survivorship care for too long,” she said.
 

An array of fixes needed

Given the array of potential obstacles to endocrine therapy adherence, improving long-term use may be equally complex.

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Arch and colleagues combed the literature for studies exploring a host of strategies to improve endocrine therapy adherence. The team focused on 25 studies involving 367,873 women with breast cancer who were prescribed tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor.

The studies assessed a variety of interventions – disease management and exercise programs to lower side effects, medication reminders via phone or letter to limit missed doses, online educational materials to highlight the importance of adherence, as well as medication changes to reduce drug costs.

Overall, these interventions were of modest benefit in improving adherence. The findings indicate that “a variety of approaches” can be effective, Dr. Arch said.

But, she noted, aside from cost-cutting strategies, “no single approach stood out as more effective than others,” and some studies found minimal or inconsistent benefits to specific interventions.

One analysis, for instance, explored a text message intervention that involved sending patients several texts per week reminding them to take their medication, exercise more, or monitor their side effects. Overall, participants who received text messages missed fewer endocrine therapy doses, compared with those who didn’t – 7.1% versus 17.0% – and for about two-thirds of participants, the text messages motivated lifestyle changes.

Another study included in the meta-analysis, however, found that “twice-weekly text reminders did not improve adherence to aromatase inhibitors.”

Studies in which patients received educational materials about the importance of adherence or how to manage side effects found that effectiveness varied as well. Other analyses indicated that integrating relaxation techniques or other cognitive-behavioral approaches into patient care may have small beneficial effects on adherence.

Dr. Arch’s meta-analysis did, however, find a consistent benefit for cost-cutting interventions. Three large studies reported that medication adherence improved following policy changes that were focused on reducing costs of adjuvant endocrine therapy, either through legislation limiting out-of-pocket costs for oral drugs or by switching to generic formulations.

Xuanzi Qin, PhD, first author on one of the studies, explained that after generic aromatase inhibitor options became available, patients who switched to these options had lower out-of-pocket costs and higher rates of drug adherence.

The take-home message of the study is that “clinicians should know the out-of-pocket costs of the drugs and discuss the costs with patients,” Dr. Qin, of the University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, told this news organization.

Dr. Arch pointed out that although the meta-analysis found a consistent benefit to cost-cutting strategies, that does not necessarily translate to a strong benefit.

And overall, the body of research indicates that “we need to develop and test new strategies and hone existing ones,” Dr. Arch said, “so that we can boost adherence even more and help more women benefit fully from these life-extending medications.”

However, Dr. Weiss explained, seemingly small measures may still make important clinical differences for individual patients, even if studies don’t show a statistically significant impact overall on endocrine therapy adherence.

For Dr. Weiss, “even getting one patient to continue their endocrine therapy is a win in my book.”

Dr. Arch reported a consulting or advisory role with AbbVie/Genentech and Bristol-Meyers Squibb and research funding from NCCN/Astrazeneca. Dr. Weiss reports being on the advisory board for Merck and Myriad. Dr. Qin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New research suggests that the presence of high-risk colon polyps at screening colonoscopy is significantly associated with an increased risk for death from hepatobiliary cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of 343,838 screening colonoscopies performed in Austria from 2007 to 2020. National death registry data were used to identify deaths from gastrointestinal cancers among patients in the cohort.
• Risk for hepatobiliary cancer death by colon polyp risk profile was assessed.
• A cause-specific Cox regression model was used to estimate the association of time to death with polyp risk group at screening colonoscopy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the screening colonoscopies, 17,678 (5.1%) revealed high-risk polyps: that is, polyps of at least 10 mm, adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, serrated polyps with dysplasia, or five or more adenomas.
• The cumulative incidence of hepatobiliary cancer death was 0.19% at 6 years and 0.44% at 12 years in the high-risk polyp group versus 0.07% and 0.18%, respectively, in the negative colonoscopy group.
• Overall hepatobiliary cancer mortality was more than twice as high in patients with high-risk polyps compared with peers who had negative colonoscopy (cumulative incidence, 0.39% vs 0.17%).
• After adjustment for age and sex, the presence of high-risk polyps at screening colonoscopy was significantly associated with death from any hepatobiliary cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83); the HRs for death from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and non-HCC hepatobiliary cancer were 1.79 and 1.88, respectively.
• There was no significant association of low-risk polyps with hepatobiliary cancer death (HR, 1.23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Hepatobiliary cancers share risk factors with colorectal cancer, but there are no combined screening programs for these conditions,” the researchers write. “Our findings imply that risk stratification at colonoscopy might be helping to identify patients at need for liver cancer surveillance. However, further studies will be needed to address whether a targeted surveillance of these patients will be cost effective.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jasmin Zessner-Spitzenberg, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna, was published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.

LIMITATIONS:

Some liver cancer deaths might have been falsely classified as other hepatic cancers. The authors lacked information on modifiable cancer risk factors. The generalizability of the findings outside of the screening setting is limited.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for data collection was provided by the Main Association of Statutory Insurance Institutions, the Austrian Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and Austrian Cancer Aid. One author reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New research suggests that the presence of high-risk colon polyps at screening colonoscopy is significantly associated with an increased risk for death from hepatobiliary cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of 343,838 screening colonoscopies performed in Austria from 2007 to 2020. National death registry data were used to identify deaths from gastrointestinal cancers among patients in the cohort.
• Risk for hepatobiliary cancer death by colon polyp risk profile was assessed.
• A cause-specific Cox regression model was used to estimate the association of time to death with polyp risk group at screening colonoscopy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the screening colonoscopies, 17,678 (5.1%) revealed high-risk polyps: that is, polyps of at least 10 mm, adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, serrated polyps with dysplasia, or five or more adenomas.
• The cumulative incidence of hepatobiliary cancer death was 0.19% at 6 years and 0.44% at 12 years in the high-risk polyp group versus 0.07% and 0.18%, respectively, in the negative colonoscopy group.
• Overall hepatobiliary cancer mortality was more than twice as high in patients with high-risk polyps compared with peers who had negative colonoscopy (cumulative incidence, 0.39% vs 0.17%).
• After adjustment for age and sex, the presence of high-risk polyps at screening colonoscopy was significantly associated with death from any hepatobiliary cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83); the HRs for death from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and non-HCC hepatobiliary cancer were 1.79 and 1.88, respectively.
• There was no significant association of low-risk polyps with hepatobiliary cancer death (HR, 1.23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Hepatobiliary cancers share risk factors with colorectal cancer, but there are no combined screening programs for these conditions,” the researchers write. “Our findings imply that risk stratification at colonoscopy might be helping to identify patients at need for liver cancer surveillance. However, further studies will be needed to address whether a targeted surveillance of these patients will be cost effective.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jasmin Zessner-Spitzenberg, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna, was published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.

LIMITATIONS:

Some liver cancer deaths might have been falsely classified as other hepatic cancers. The authors lacked information on modifiable cancer risk factors. The generalizability of the findings outside of the screening setting is limited.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for data collection was provided by the Main Association of Statutory Insurance Institutions, the Austrian Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and Austrian Cancer Aid. One author reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New research suggests that the presence of high-risk colon polyps at screening colonoscopy is significantly associated with an increased risk for death from hepatobiliary cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of 343,838 screening colonoscopies performed in Austria from 2007 to 2020. National death registry data were used to identify deaths from gastrointestinal cancers among patients in the cohort.
• Risk for hepatobiliary cancer death by colon polyp risk profile was assessed.
• A cause-specific Cox regression model was used to estimate the association of time to death with polyp risk group at screening colonoscopy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the screening colonoscopies, 17,678 (5.1%) revealed high-risk polyps: that is, polyps of at least 10 mm, adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, serrated polyps with dysplasia, or five or more adenomas.
• The cumulative incidence of hepatobiliary cancer death was 0.19% at 6 years and 0.44% at 12 years in the high-risk polyp group versus 0.07% and 0.18%, respectively, in the negative colonoscopy group.
• Overall hepatobiliary cancer mortality was more than twice as high in patients with high-risk polyps compared with peers who had negative colonoscopy (cumulative incidence, 0.39% vs 0.17%).
• After adjustment for age and sex, the presence of high-risk polyps at screening colonoscopy was significantly associated with death from any hepatobiliary cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83); the HRs for death from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and non-HCC hepatobiliary cancer were 1.79 and 1.88, respectively.
• There was no significant association of low-risk polyps with hepatobiliary cancer death (HR, 1.23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Hepatobiliary cancers share risk factors with colorectal cancer, but there are no combined screening programs for these conditions,” the researchers write. “Our findings imply that risk stratification at colonoscopy might be helping to identify patients at need for liver cancer surveillance. However, further studies will be needed to address whether a targeted surveillance of these patients will be cost effective.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jasmin Zessner-Spitzenberg, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna, was published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.

LIMITATIONS:

Some liver cancer deaths might have been falsely classified as other hepatic cancers. The authors lacked information on modifiable cancer risk factors. The generalizability of the findings outside of the screening setting is limited.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for data collection was provided by the Main Association of Statutory Insurance Institutions, the Austrian Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and Austrian Cancer Aid. One author reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent data suggest that the incidence of early-onset cancer, defined as cancer diagnosed in people younger than 50 years, is on the rise in several countries. Two recent studies confirm this trend, including one published in early September in BMJ Oncology that presents worldwide data on the matter.

Early-onset cancer

The article published in BMJ Oncology shows that over the past 30 years (1990 to 2019), new cancer cases in patients younger than 50 years have increased by 79% worldwide, reaching 3.26 million cases. Among them, early-onset breast cancer had the highest incidence (13.7) and mortality (3.5 per 100k) rates in the global population.

Tracheal (nasopharyngeal) and prostate cancer have increased the most rapidly since 1990, with annual percentage changes estimated at 2.28% and 2.23%, respectively. At the other end of the scale, cases of early-onset liver cancer dropped by around 2.88% year on year.
 

Increase in deaths

There were more than a million (1.06) cancer deaths among patients younger than 50 years in 2019, which is an increase of slightly less than 28% compared with the figures from 1990.

The top four early-onset cancers with the highest mortality and disability-adjusted life year rates among young adults in 2019 were early-onset breast; tracheal, bronchus and lung; stomach; and colorectal cancers. The mortality rates of early-onset kidney cancer and ovarian cancer showed the fastest increasing trends.

“These results contrast with a more traditionally held view of ‘typical’ cancers in adults aged under 50 years,” Ashleigh C. Hamilton, MD, an academic clinical lecturer, and Helen G. Coleman, PhD, a professor, both at Queen’s University Belfast’s Centre for Public Health in the United Kingdom, explained in an accompanying editorial. An important aspect of this study is that it tackled the issue of increasing cancer rates among young people on a global scale, they added. Here, the researchers made use of 2019 data from the Global Burden of Disease database for 29 types of cancer in 204 countries and regions.
 

Industrialized countries

The highest rates of early-onset cancer in 2019 were reported in North America, Australasia, and Western Europe. However, the burden of early-onset cancers in low- to middle-income countries is also of major public health concern. The highest death rates among patients younger than 50 years were in Oceania, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.

In low- or middle-income regions, early-onset cancer had a significantly higher impact on women than on men in terms of mortality and disease burden, the researchers reported.

On the basis of trends observed over the past 30 years, they estimate that the global incidence and deaths of early-onset cancer would increase by 31% and 21% in 2030, respectively, with 40-year-olds being the most affected.
 

Hypotheses and limitations

How can this increase in the incidence of cancer among patients younger than 50 years be explained? For the authors, genetic factors likely play a role. But dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium, and low in milk, etc.), alcohol consumption, and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers in patients under age 50 years. Physical inactivity, excess weight, and hyperglycemia were shown to be contributing factors.

The researchers recognized several limitations to their conclusions. First, the accuracy of Global Burden of Disease data was compromised by the quality of cancer registry data in different countries, which may have led to underreporting and underdiagnosis. Also, questions remain about how screening and early exposure to environmental factors can affect the observed trends.

For the authors of the editorial, “Full understanding of the reasons driving the observed trends remains elusive, although lifestyle factors are likely contributing, and novel areas of research such as antibiotic usage, the gut microbiome, outdoor air pollution, and early life exposures are being explored.”

They concluded, “Prevention and early detection measures are urgently required, along with identifying optimal treatment strategies for early-onset cancers, which should include a holistic approach addressing the unique supportive care needs of younger patients.”

The authors added, “It is worth exploring whether early screening and prevention programs for early-onset cancer should be expanded to include individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49, but further systematic studies and randomized trials are necessary to make a definitive determination.”
 

Trend in the United States

Between 2010 and 2019, although the incidence of cancer dropped in people over age 50 years in the United States, a study published in JAMA Network Open in August showed that the standardized incidence rate of early-onset cancer increased overall. More specifically, the rate increased in women but decreased in men.

In 2019, most early-onset cancer cases involved breast cancer. Between 2010 and 2019, gastrointestinal cancers saw the fastest rise. And among gastrointestinal cancers, those whose incidence rate increased the most rapidly were those affecting the appendix, the intrahepatic bile ducts, and the pancreas.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent data suggest that the incidence of early-onset cancer, defined as cancer diagnosed in people younger than 50 years, is on the rise in several countries. Two recent studies confirm this trend, including one published in early September in BMJ Oncology that presents worldwide data on the matter.

Early-onset cancer

The article published in BMJ Oncology shows that over the past 30 years (1990 to 2019), new cancer cases in patients younger than 50 years have increased by 79% worldwide, reaching 3.26 million cases. Among them, early-onset breast cancer had the highest incidence (13.7) and mortality (3.5 per 100k) rates in the global population.

Tracheal (nasopharyngeal) and prostate cancer have increased the most rapidly since 1990, with annual percentage changes estimated at 2.28% and 2.23%, respectively. At the other end of the scale, cases of early-onset liver cancer dropped by around 2.88% year on year.
 

Increase in deaths

There were more than a million (1.06) cancer deaths among patients younger than 50 years in 2019, which is an increase of slightly less than 28% compared with the figures from 1990.

The top four early-onset cancers with the highest mortality and disability-adjusted life year rates among young adults in 2019 were early-onset breast; tracheal, bronchus and lung; stomach; and colorectal cancers. The mortality rates of early-onset kidney cancer and ovarian cancer showed the fastest increasing trends.

“These results contrast with a more traditionally held view of ‘typical’ cancers in adults aged under 50 years,” Ashleigh C. Hamilton, MD, an academic clinical lecturer, and Helen G. Coleman, PhD, a professor, both at Queen’s University Belfast’s Centre for Public Health in the United Kingdom, explained in an accompanying editorial. An important aspect of this study is that it tackled the issue of increasing cancer rates among young people on a global scale, they added. Here, the researchers made use of 2019 data from the Global Burden of Disease database for 29 types of cancer in 204 countries and regions.
 

Industrialized countries

The highest rates of early-onset cancer in 2019 were reported in North America, Australasia, and Western Europe. However, the burden of early-onset cancers in low- to middle-income countries is also of major public health concern. The highest death rates among patients younger than 50 years were in Oceania, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.

In low- or middle-income regions, early-onset cancer had a significantly higher impact on women than on men in terms of mortality and disease burden, the researchers reported.

On the basis of trends observed over the past 30 years, they estimate that the global incidence and deaths of early-onset cancer would increase by 31% and 21% in 2030, respectively, with 40-year-olds being the most affected.
 

Hypotheses and limitations

How can this increase in the incidence of cancer among patients younger than 50 years be explained? For the authors, genetic factors likely play a role. But dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium, and low in milk, etc.), alcohol consumption, and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers in patients under age 50 years. Physical inactivity, excess weight, and hyperglycemia were shown to be contributing factors.

The researchers recognized several limitations to their conclusions. First, the accuracy of Global Burden of Disease data was compromised by the quality of cancer registry data in different countries, which may have led to underreporting and underdiagnosis. Also, questions remain about how screening and early exposure to environmental factors can affect the observed trends.

For the authors of the editorial, “Full understanding of the reasons driving the observed trends remains elusive, although lifestyle factors are likely contributing, and novel areas of research such as antibiotic usage, the gut microbiome, outdoor air pollution, and early life exposures are being explored.”

They concluded, “Prevention and early detection measures are urgently required, along with identifying optimal treatment strategies for early-onset cancers, which should include a holistic approach addressing the unique supportive care needs of younger patients.”

The authors added, “It is worth exploring whether early screening and prevention programs for early-onset cancer should be expanded to include individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49, but further systematic studies and randomized trials are necessary to make a definitive determination.”
 

Trend in the United States

Between 2010 and 2019, although the incidence of cancer dropped in people over age 50 years in the United States, a study published in JAMA Network Open in August showed that the standardized incidence rate of early-onset cancer increased overall. More specifically, the rate increased in women but decreased in men.

In 2019, most early-onset cancer cases involved breast cancer. Between 2010 and 2019, gastrointestinal cancers saw the fastest rise. And among gastrointestinal cancers, those whose incidence rate increased the most rapidly were those affecting the appendix, the intrahepatic bile ducts, and the pancreas.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent data suggest that the incidence of early-onset cancer, defined as cancer diagnosed in people younger than 50 years, is on the rise in several countries. Two recent studies confirm this trend, including one published in early September in BMJ Oncology that presents worldwide data on the matter.

Early-onset cancer

The article published in BMJ Oncology shows that over the past 30 years (1990 to 2019), new cancer cases in patients younger than 50 years have increased by 79% worldwide, reaching 3.26 million cases. Among them, early-onset breast cancer had the highest incidence (13.7) and mortality (3.5 per 100k) rates in the global population.

Tracheal (nasopharyngeal) and prostate cancer have increased the most rapidly since 1990, with annual percentage changes estimated at 2.28% and 2.23%, respectively. At the other end of the scale, cases of early-onset liver cancer dropped by around 2.88% year on year.
 

Increase in deaths

There were more than a million (1.06) cancer deaths among patients younger than 50 years in 2019, which is an increase of slightly less than 28% compared with the figures from 1990.

The top four early-onset cancers with the highest mortality and disability-adjusted life year rates among young adults in 2019 were early-onset breast; tracheal, bronchus and lung; stomach; and colorectal cancers. The mortality rates of early-onset kidney cancer and ovarian cancer showed the fastest increasing trends.

“These results contrast with a more traditionally held view of ‘typical’ cancers in adults aged under 50 years,” Ashleigh C. Hamilton, MD, an academic clinical lecturer, and Helen G. Coleman, PhD, a professor, both at Queen’s University Belfast’s Centre for Public Health in the United Kingdom, explained in an accompanying editorial. An important aspect of this study is that it tackled the issue of increasing cancer rates among young people on a global scale, they added. Here, the researchers made use of 2019 data from the Global Burden of Disease database for 29 types of cancer in 204 countries and regions.
 

Industrialized countries

The highest rates of early-onset cancer in 2019 were reported in North America, Australasia, and Western Europe. However, the burden of early-onset cancers in low- to middle-income countries is also of major public health concern. The highest death rates among patients younger than 50 years were in Oceania, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.

In low- or middle-income regions, early-onset cancer had a significantly higher impact on women than on men in terms of mortality and disease burden, the researchers reported.

On the basis of trends observed over the past 30 years, they estimate that the global incidence and deaths of early-onset cancer would increase by 31% and 21% in 2030, respectively, with 40-year-olds being the most affected.
 

Hypotheses and limitations

How can this increase in the incidence of cancer among patients younger than 50 years be explained? For the authors, genetic factors likely play a role. But dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium, and low in milk, etc.), alcohol consumption, and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers in patients under age 50 years. Physical inactivity, excess weight, and hyperglycemia were shown to be contributing factors.

The researchers recognized several limitations to their conclusions. First, the accuracy of Global Burden of Disease data was compromised by the quality of cancer registry data in different countries, which may have led to underreporting and underdiagnosis. Also, questions remain about how screening and early exposure to environmental factors can affect the observed trends.

For the authors of the editorial, “Full understanding of the reasons driving the observed trends remains elusive, although lifestyle factors are likely contributing, and novel areas of research such as antibiotic usage, the gut microbiome, outdoor air pollution, and early life exposures are being explored.”

They concluded, “Prevention and early detection measures are urgently required, along with identifying optimal treatment strategies for early-onset cancers, which should include a holistic approach addressing the unique supportive care needs of younger patients.”

The authors added, “It is worth exploring whether early screening and prevention programs for early-onset cancer should be expanded to include individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49, but further systematic studies and randomized trials are necessary to make a definitive determination.”
 

Trend in the United States

Between 2010 and 2019, although the incidence of cancer dropped in people over age 50 years in the United States, a study published in JAMA Network Open in August showed that the standardized incidence rate of early-onset cancer increased overall. More specifically, the rate increased in women but decreased in men.

In 2019, most early-onset cancer cases involved breast cancer. Between 2010 and 2019, gastrointestinal cancers saw the fastest rise. And among gastrointestinal cancers, those whose incidence rate increased the most rapidly were those affecting the appendix, the intrahepatic bile ducts, and the pancreas.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At a glance, “health literacy” sounds like it has something specifically to do with the ability to read. Mary Laudon Thomas, MS, CNS, AOCN, a former president of Association of VA Hematology/Oncology, knows better.

“It’s not the same as reading level, and it’s not the same as educational level,” Thomas told Federal Practitioner. “Even educated people can think men can’t get breast cancer or misunderstand how to properly take their medications.”

Instead, health literacy is a broader topic: Do patients understand what’s going on when they get medical care? Can they use the information they get to make informed decisions about their health? Low health literacy is associated with lower use of preventative care of poorer adherence, poorer ability to navigate the health system and contributes to social inequities. In cancer care, low health literacy is associated with lower levels of screening, longer lag times in symptom identification, impairments in risk perception, fewer questions, lower perceived quality of life, and less follow-up.

Thomas and colleagues explored strategies to improve health literacy in cancer care during a half-day session on September 28th, kicking off the AVAHO 2023 annual meeting in Chicago. 

There are countless examples of patients who fail to understand aspects of their care, said Thomas, a retired clinical nurse specialist in hematology at California’s VA Palo Alto Health Care System who now serves as cochair of the AVAHO education committee. A patient may not realize that high blood pressure and hypertension are the same thing, for instance, or not understand that they need to go to the radiology department for a computed tomography.

“That’s our problem,” Thomas said. “We’re so fluent in our medical-speak that we forget we’re speaking a foreign language to other people.”

The goal of the AVAHO 2023 workshop is to “help people develop awareness of the scope of the problem and give them tools they can use to simplify how they speak to patients, teach patients and inform patients,” Thomas said.

In the first segment of the program, Angela Kumar, MPH, national program manager for Veterans Health Education and Information, discussed the VA organizational approach to health literacy. She noted that building a health-literate care organization aligns with the VA goal to be a high reliability organization. Veterans who have questions and concerns will need additional information throughout their cancer journey. The role for VA clinicians is to help answer veterans’ questions. “Rather than assume patients know what we are talking about, we have to make sure they understand,” Kumar explained. Institutional support will lead to better health outcomes and patient satisfaction throughout the system. VA is in the process of creating a patient centered learning program, Kumar noted. The program will be open to veterans, their families, caregivers, and provide training for VA health care professionals.

In the workshop’s 2 other sessions Janet Papadakos, PhD, MEd, a scientist at the University of Toronto’s Institute for Education Research, discussed the impact of health literacy on cancer treatment and outcomes and Fatemeh Youssefi, PhD, RN, OCN, director at large and committee member of the Oncology Nursing Society, discussed the roles of health literacy and patient education in empowering patients. Both speakers noted that patients with cancer are undergoing intense emotional stress, which can significantly impact their ability to understanding their treatment. Importantly, Papadakos explained, people can change and improve their health literacy, so clinicians have an opportunity to help influence and improve comprehension for their patient, by taking basic steps shown to improve health literacy.

“We know that in general, people with low health literacy report worse health, and they also have historically have poor outcomes,” Thomas said. Indeed, a 2021 systematic review of 66 papers found that “lower health literacy was associated with greater difficulties understanding and processing cancer related information, poorer quality of life and poorer experience of care.” Just 12% of US adults have proficient health literacy and one-third of adults have difficulty with common health tasks.

Papadakos and Youssefi provided some guidance for better communication with patients. Teach back, for example, is a tool to ensure patients understand topics when discussed. The key, Papadakos explained, is that it is not a test of the patient but rather a test of how well the information was communicated. Youssefi and Papadakos also emphasized the importance of using plain language. Clear and precise words that avoid technical terms avoid miscommunication and confusion. Finally, they urged clinicians to never assume health literacy and to approach all patients using clear language to ensure that they understand and can provide back the content covered.

Thomas said 3 more virtual sessions about health literacy will be offered over the coming year. Organizers will develop the specific topics after engaging in a discussion with attendees at the end of the AVAHO session. Meanwhile, advocates are developing a section of the AVAHO website that will be devoted to health literacy.

The workshop received support from Genentech.

At a glance, “health literacy” sounds like it has something specifically to do with the ability to read. Mary Laudon Thomas, MS, CNS, AOCN, a former president of Association of VA Hematology/Oncology, knows better.

“It’s not the same as reading level, and it’s not the same as educational level,” Thomas told Federal Practitioner. “Even educated people can think men can’t get breast cancer or misunderstand how to properly take their medications.”

Instead, health literacy is a broader topic: Do patients understand what’s going on when they get medical care? Can they use the information they get to make informed decisions about their health? Low health literacy is associated with lower use of preventative care of poorer adherence, poorer ability to navigate the health system and contributes to social inequities. In cancer care, low health literacy is associated with lower levels of screening, longer lag times in symptom identification, impairments in risk perception, fewer questions, lower perceived quality of life, and less follow-up.

Thomas and colleagues explored strategies to improve health literacy in cancer care during a half-day session on September 28th, kicking off the AVAHO 2023 annual meeting in Chicago. 

There are countless examples of patients who fail to understand aspects of their care, said Thomas, a retired clinical nurse specialist in hematology at California’s VA Palo Alto Health Care System who now serves as cochair of the AVAHO education committee. A patient may not realize that high blood pressure and hypertension are the same thing, for instance, or not understand that they need to go to the radiology department for a computed tomography.

“That’s our problem,” Thomas said. “We’re so fluent in our medical-speak that we forget we’re speaking a foreign language to other people.”

The goal of the AVAHO 2023 workshop is to “help people develop awareness of the scope of the problem and give them tools they can use to simplify how they speak to patients, teach patients and inform patients,” Thomas said.

In the first segment of the program, Angela Kumar, MPH, national program manager for Veterans Health Education and Information, discussed the VA organizational approach to health literacy. She noted that building a health-literate care organization aligns with the VA goal to be a high reliability organization. Veterans who have questions and concerns will need additional information throughout their cancer journey. The role for VA clinicians is to help answer veterans’ questions. “Rather than assume patients know what we are talking about, we have to make sure they understand,” Kumar explained. Institutional support will lead to better health outcomes and patient satisfaction throughout the system. VA is in the process of creating a patient centered learning program, Kumar noted. The program will be open to veterans, their families, caregivers, and provide training for VA health care professionals.

In the workshop’s 2 other sessions Janet Papadakos, PhD, MEd, a scientist at the University of Toronto’s Institute for Education Research, discussed the impact of health literacy on cancer treatment and outcomes and Fatemeh Youssefi, PhD, RN, OCN, director at large and committee member of the Oncology Nursing Society, discussed the roles of health literacy and patient education in empowering patients. Both speakers noted that patients with cancer are undergoing intense emotional stress, which can significantly impact their ability to understanding their treatment. Importantly, Papadakos explained, people can change and improve their health literacy, so clinicians have an opportunity to help influence and improve comprehension for their patient, by taking basic steps shown to improve health literacy.

“We know that in general, people with low health literacy report worse health, and they also have historically have poor outcomes,” Thomas said. Indeed, a 2021 systematic review of 66 papers found that “lower health literacy was associated with greater difficulties understanding and processing cancer related information, poorer quality of life and poorer experience of care.” Just 12% of US adults have proficient health literacy and one-third of adults have difficulty with common health tasks.

Papadakos and Youssefi provided some guidance for better communication with patients. Teach back, for example, is a tool to ensure patients understand topics when discussed. The key, Papadakos explained, is that it is not a test of the patient but rather a test of how well the information was communicated. Youssefi and Papadakos also emphasized the importance of using plain language. Clear and precise words that avoid technical terms avoid miscommunication and confusion. Finally, they urged clinicians to never assume health literacy and to approach all patients using clear language to ensure that they understand and can provide back the content covered.

Thomas said 3 more virtual sessions about health literacy will be offered over the coming year. Organizers will develop the specific topics after engaging in a discussion with attendees at the end of the AVAHO session. Meanwhile, advocates are developing a section of the AVAHO website that will be devoted to health literacy.

The workshop received support from Genentech.

At a glance, “health literacy” sounds like it has something specifically to do with the ability to read. Mary Laudon Thomas, MS, CNS, AOCN, a former president of Association of VA Hematology/Oncology, knows better.

“It’s not the same as reading level, and it’s not the same as educational level,” Thomas told Federal Practitioner. “Even educated people can think men can’t get breast cancer or misunderstand how to properly take their medications.”

Instead, health literacy is a broader topic: Do patients understand what’s going on when they get medical care? Can they use the information they get to make informed decisions about their health? Low health literacy is associated with lower use of preventative care of poorer adherence, poorer ability to navigate the health system and contributes to social inequities. In cancer care, low health literacy is associated with lower levels of screening, longer lag times in symptom identification, impairments in risk perception, fewer questions, lower perceived quality of life, and less follow-up.

Thomas and colleagues explored strategies to improve health literacy in cancer care during a half-day session on September 28th, kicking off the AVAHO 2023 annual meeting in Chicago. 

There are countless examples of patients who fail to understand aspects of their care, said Thomas, a retired clinical nurse specialist in hematology at California’s VA Palo Alto Health Care System who now serves as cochair of the AVAHO education committee. A patient may not realize that high blood pressure and hypertension are the same thing, for instance, or not understand that they need to go to the radiology department for a computed tomography.

“That’s our problem,” Thomas said. “We’re so fluent in our medical-speak that we forget we’re speaking a foreign language to other people.”

The goal of the AVAHO 2023 workshop is to “help people develop awareness of the scope of the problem and give them tools they can use to simplify how they speak to patients, teach patients and inform patients,” Thomas said.

In the first segment of the program, Angela Kumar, MPH, national program manager for Veterans Health Education and Information, discussed the VA organizational approach to health literacy. She noted that building a health-literate care organization aligns with the VA goal to be a high reliability organization. Veterans who have questions and concerns will need additional information throughout their cancer journey. The role for VA clinicians is to help answer veterans’ questions. “Rather than assume patients know what we are talking about, we have to make sure they understand,” Kumar explained. Institutional support will lead to better health outcomes and patient satisfaction throughout the system. VA is in the process of creating a patient centered learning program, Kumar noted. The program will be open to veterans, their families, caregivers, and provide training for VA health care professionals.

In the workshop’s 2 other sessions Janet Papadakos, PhD, MEd, a scientist at the University of Toronto’s Institute for Education Research, discussed the impact of health literacy on cancer treatment and outcomes and Fatemeh Youssefi, PhD, RN, OCN, director at large and committee member of the Oncology Nursing Society, discussed the roles of health literacy and patient education in empowering patients. Both speakers noted that patients with cancer are undergoing intense emotional stress, which can significantly impact their ability to understanding their treatment. Importantly, Papadakos explained, people can change and improve their health literacy, so clinicians have an opportunity to help influence and improve comprehension for their patient, by taking basic steps shown to improve health literacy.

“We know that in general, people with low health literacy report worse health, and they also have historically have poor outcomes,” Thomas said. Indeed, a 2021 systematic review of 66 papers found that “lower health literacy was associated with greater difficulties understanding and processing cancer related information, poorer quality of life and poorer experience of care.” Just 12% of US adults have proficient health literacy and one-third of adults have difficulty with common health tasks.

Papadakos and Youssefi provided some guidance for better communication with patients. Teach back, for example, is a tool to ensure patients understand topics when discussed. The key, Papadakos explained, is that it is not a test of the patient but rather a test of how well the information was communicated. Youssefi and Papadakos also emphasized the importance of using plain language. Clear and precise words that avoid technical terms avoid miscommunication and confusion. Finally, they urged clinicians to never assume health literacy and to approach all patients using clear language to ensure that they understand and can provide back the content covered.

Thomas said 3 more virtual sessions about health literacy will be offered over the coming year. Organizers will develop the specific topics after engaging in a discussion with attendees at the end of the AVAHO session. Meanwhile, advocates are developing a section of the AVAHO website that will be devoted to health literacy.

The workshop received support from Genentech.

For patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), especially those who are older or have relapsed/refractory disease, standard chemotherapy treatments often fail to change their poor clinical trajectories. These days, however, a new era of targeted therapy is improving prognoses somewhat – and raising hopes that even bigger advancements are on the horizon.

“We went almost 3 decades with nothing, then all of a sudden we’ve had nine approvals in 5 or 6 years,” said Harvard Medical School, Boston, leukemia specialist Amir Fathi, MD, in an interview. “We’ve had a lot of advancement and a number of good options emerge.”

However, Dr. Fathi and other hematologists cautioned that the treatment landscape is becoming more complex to navigate. And they noted that prognoses for many older patients with AML remain grim. The expensive new treatments may only extend their lifespans by a matter of months, although some are surviving for years.

As the specialists explained, there are a variety of reasons why AML is especially difficult to treat.

“AML is one of the fastest growing human cancers, with tumor cell doubling times measured in mere hours in some patients. Therefore patients can present critically ill with white blood cell counts in the [hundreds of thousands of white blood cells per microliter instead of the normal range of 4,000-11,000]," said leukemia specialist Eunice S. Wang, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y. “Because blood cells are found in every organ of the body, the sheer volume of rapidly growing cancer cells can overwhelm multiple organ systems in a very short amount of time. These rapid growing cells and the fact that the median age of diagnosis with AML is 67-70 years old makes this a clinically challenging cancer to treat. Chemotherapy strong enough to kill cancer cells run the risk of also harming the patient as well.”

Also, older patients often have comorbidities, and they face risks of infection from both the disease and its treatments, said AML specialist Nicole R. Grieselhuber, MD, PhD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, in an interview.

Enter targeted therapy, which “has allowed individuals who previously were not candidates for cytotoxic chemotherapy because of their age or possible toxicities to receive effective therapy for AML,” Dr. Wang said. “Therapy directed at specific biological features of AML cells such as mutations (FLT3, IDH1, IDH2) or surface proteins (CD33) can augment the efficacy of conventional chemotherapy or in some cases (i.e., FLT3 inhibitors) be more effective than chemotherapy in controlling AML.”

Targeted therapy drugs “are expected to more selectively kill cancer cells and spare normal counterparts,” she added.

The FDA has approved nine targeted therapy drugs for AML in the last few years.

Retinoic acid and arsenic trioxide therapy for acute promyelocytic leukemia “has transformed this AML subtype into one of the most curable AML diseases,” Dr. Wang said. A 2017 long-term analysis of the drug combination found that complete remission was reached in 96% of 54 high-risk patients and 133 low-risk patients; the 5-year survival rate was 88%. (Some patients also received gemtuzumab ozogamicin, a CD33 antibody-drug conjugate.)

According to Dr. Wang, three FLT3 inhibitors have been approved for AML with the FLT3 mutation: midostaurin and quizartinib in the frontline setting in conjunction with intensive chemotherapy and gilteritinib for relapsed/refractory FLT3-mutant AML.

A 2017 study linked midostaurin plus chemotherapy to longer survival (hazard ratio for death = 0.78; P = .009), versus placebo plus chemotherapy, in patients aged 18-59. This year, a phase 3 randomized trial of quizartinib versus placebo linked the drug to longer survival median overall (31.9 months versus 15.1 months; P = .032) In a 2019 trial, patients who took gilteritinib had longer median overall survival (9.3 months versus 5.6 months; HR for death = 0.64; P < .001).

The success of these treatments “has led FLT3 mutant AML to be reclassified from a poor risk AML subtype to intermediate risk AML,” Dr. Wang said.

A 2022 report about FLT3 inhibitors cautioned, however, that “several drug resistance mechanisms have been identified” and added that “the benefit of FLT3 inhibitor maintenance therapy, either post chemotherapy or post transplant, remains controversial, although several studies are ongoing.”

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin is a monoclonal antibody connected to a chemotherapy drug, according to the American Cancer Society. “The addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to intensive chemotherapy has enhanced outcomes of favorable and intermediate risk disease,” Dr. Wang said.

Ivosidenib, olutasidenib, and enasidenib target the IDH1 or IDH2 genes in ADL. “These drugs seem to work by helping the leukemia cells mature (differentiate) into more normal cells,” according to the American Cancer Society. “Because of this, they are sometimes referred to as differentiation agents.”

In older adults, a combination treatment with venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, and a hypomethylating agent has become standard, Ohio State’s Dr. Grieselhuber said. The treatment is FDA approved.

There are caveats to targeted therapy in AML. The treatments can be enormously expensive, “and even patients with insurance are often shocked by the copay,” Dr. Grieselhuber said. It helps to work with pharmacists, social workers, or nurse navigators to help patients afford the treatments, she said.

Side effects vary by therapy and can include QT elongation and differentiation syndrome.

Most challenging of all, many AML patients still face shortened lifespans even if new treatments are available for them.

“Typically for older patients with AML, the lifespan of patients with therapy was 5-7 months and without therapy was 2-3 months,” Dr. Wang said. “Now, with regimens specifically designed for elderly and/or unfit subjects, many individuals are now routinely living more than a year: 14-18 months to 3-4 years.”

But “the vast majority of AML patients will still die of their disease with overall 5-year outcomes still less than 30% in all age categories,” she said. In addition, “fewer than 50% of AML patients are eligible for treatment with FDA-approved targeted therapies, as their disease biology does not express the mutation or protein needed for efficacy.”

Still, she said, “this represents a vast improvement.” And, she added, “in younger individuals, the combination of chemotherapy followed by allogeneic transplant has now permitted more of these individuals to be cured of their disease.” Dr. Grieselhuber noted that transplants are now considered appropriate even for patients in their 60s or early 70s, and they can be combined with targeted therapy.

Dr. Grieselhuber urged colleagues to keep in mind that quality-of-life preferences will play a role in some patient choices. For example, a elderly patient may reject burdensome infusion therapy and choose a pill instead, even if it has less efficacy. “There’s really no one-size-fits-all,” she said.

And, she added, it can be difficult to make choices about treatment because of the lack of randomized, head-to-head data regarding new therapies.

What’s on the horizon? Dr. Wang highlighted a novel class of targeted therapies called menin inhibitors for patients with NPM1-mutated AML, which she said accounts for one-third of patients with the disease. A treatment targeting disease in the 5%-10% patients with the KMT2A gene is also in the works, she said.

For now, Dr. Wang said it’s essential for clinicians “to perform timely comprehensive molecular and genomic tests on all AML patients at diagnosis and relapse to determine which individuals would benefit from targeted therapy versus cytotoxic chemotherapy. And participation in clinical trials at every stage of AML therapy can help accelerate clinical development of new agents for this disease.”

Dr. Fathi discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Rigel, Autolus, Amgen, Servier, Takeda, Orum, Menarini, Remix, AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, Ibsen, Gilead, Genentech, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Wang discloses ties with AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, CTI Biopharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Kite, Kura, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel, Sellas, and Sumitomo Pharma. Dr. Grieselhuber has no disclosures.

For patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), especially those who are older or have relapsed/refractory disease, standard chemotherapy treatments often fail to change their poor clinical trajectories. These days, however, a new era of targeted therapy is improving prognoses somewhat – and raising hopes that even bigger advancements are on the horizon.

“We went almost 3 decades with nothing, then all of a sudden we’ve had nine approvals in 5 or 6 years,” said Harvard Medical School, Boston, leukemia specialist Amir Fathi, MD, in an interview. “We’ve had a lot of advancement and a number of good options emerge.”

However, Dr. Fathi and other hematologists cautioned that the treatment landscape is becoming more complex to navigate. And they noted that prognoses for many older patients with AML remain grim. The expensive new treatments may only extend their lifespans by a matter of months, although some are surviving for years.

As the specialists explained, there are a variety of reasons why AML is especially difficult to treat.

“AML is one of the fastest growing human cancers, with tumor cell doubling times measured in mere hours in some patients. Therefore patients can present critically ill with white blood cell counts in the [hundreds of thousands of white blood cells per microliter instead of the normal range of 4,000-11,000]," said leukemia specialist Eunice S. Wang, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y. “Because blood cells are found in every organ of the body, the sheer volume of rapidly growing cancer cells can overwhelm multiple organ systems in a very short amount of time. These rapid growing cells and the fact that the median age of diagnosis with AML is 67-70 years old makes this a clinically challenging cancer to treat. Chemotherapy strong enough to kill cancer cells run the risk of also harming the patient as well.”

Also, older patients often have comorbidities, and they face risks of infection from both the disease and its treatments, said AML specialist Nicole R. Grieselhuber, MD, PhD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, in an interview.

Enter targeted therapy, which “has allowed individuals who previously were not candidates for cytotoxic chemotherapy because of their age or possible toxicities to receive effective therapy for AML,” Dr. Wang said. “Therapy directed at specific biological features of AML cells such as mutations (FLT3, IDH1, IDH2) or surface proteins (CD33) can augment the efficacy of conventional chemotherapy or in some cases (i.e., FLT3 inhibitors) be more effective than chemotherapy in controlling AML.”

Targeted therapy drugs “are expected to more selectively kill cancer cells and spare normal counterparts,” she added.

The FDA has approved nine targeted therapy drugs for AML in the last few years.

Retinoic acid and arsenic trioxide therapy for acute promyelocytic leukemia “has transformed this AML subtype into one of the most curable AML diseases,” Dr. Wang said. A 2017 long-term analysis of the drug combination found that complete remission was reached in 96% of 54 high-risk patients and 133 low-risk patients; the 5-year survival rate was 88%. (Some patients also received gemtuzumab ozogamicin, a CD33 antibody-drug conjugate.)

According to Dr. Wang, three FLT3 inhibitors have been approved for AML with the FLT3 mutation: midostaurin and quizartinib in the frontline setting in conjunction with intensive chemotherapy and gilteritinib for relapsed/refractory FLT3-mutant AML.

A 2017 study linked midostaurin plus chemotherapy to longer survival (hazard ratio for death = 0.78; P = .009), versus placebo plus chemotherapy, in patients aged 18-59. This year, a phase 3 randomized trial of quizartinib versus placebo linked the drug to longer survival median overall (31.9 months versus 15.1 months; P = .032) In a 2019 trial, patients who took gilteritinib had longer median overall survival (9.3 months versus 5.6 months; HR for death = 0.64; P < .001).

The success of these treatments “has led FLT3 mutant AML to be reclassified from a poor risk AML subtype to intermediate risk AML,” Dr. Wang said.

A 2022 report about FLT3 inhibitors cautioned, however, that “several drug resistance mechanisms have been identified” and added that “the benefit of FLT3 inhibitor maintenance therapy, either post chemotherapy or post transplant, remains controversial, although several studies are ongoing.”

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin is a monoclonal antibody connected to a chemotherapy drug, according to the American Cancer Society. “The addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to intensive chemotherapy has enhanced outcomes of favorable and intermediate risk disease,” Dr. Wang said.

Ivosidenib, olutasidenib, and enasidenib target the IDH1 or IDH2 genes in ADL. “These drugs seem to work by helping the leukemia cells mature (differentiate) into more normal cells,” according to the American Cancer Society. “Because of this, they are sometimes referred to as differentiation agents.”

In older adults, a combination treatment with venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, and a hypomethylating agent has become standard, Ohio State’s Dr. Grieselhuber said. The treatment is FDA approved.

There are caveats to targeted therapy in AML. The treatments can be enormously expensive, “and even patients with insurance are often shocked by the copay,” Dr. Grieselhuber said. It helps to work with pharmacists, social workers, or nurse navigators to help patients afford the treatments, she said.

Side effects vary by therapy and can include QT elongation and differentiation syndrome.

Most challenging of all, many AML patients still face shortened lifespans even if new treatments are available for them.

“Typically for older patients with AML, the lifespan of patients with therapy was 5-7 months and without therapy was 2-3 months,” Dr. Wang said. “Now, with regimens specifically designed for elderly and/or unfit subjects, many individuals are now routinely living more than a year: 14-18 months to 3-4 years.”

But “the vast majority of AML patients will still die of their disease with overall 5-year outcomes still less than 30% in all age categories,” she said. In addition, “fewer than 50% of AML patients are eligible for treatment with FDA-approved targeted therapies, as their disease biology does not express the mutation or protein needed for efficacy.”

Still, she said, “this represents a vast improvement.” And, she added, “in younger individuals, the combination of chemotherapy followed by allogeneic transplant has now permitted more of these individuals to be cured of their disease.” Dr. Grieselhuber noted that transplants are now considered appropriate even for patients in their 60s or early 70s, and they can be combined with targeted therapy.

Dr. Grieselhuber urged colleagues to keep in mind that quality-of-life preferences will play a role in some patient choices. For example, a elderly patient may reject burdensome infusion therapy and choose a pill instead, even if it has less efficacy. “There’s really no one-size-fits-all,” she said.

And, she added, it can be difficult to make choices about treatment because of the lack of randomized, head-to-head data regarding new therapies.

What’s on the horizon? Dr. Wang highlighted a novel class of targeted therapies called menin inhibitors for patients with NPM1-mutated AML, which she said accounts for one-third of patients with the disease. A treatment targeting disease in the 5%-10% patients with the KMT2A gene is also in the works, she said.

For now, Dr. Wang said it’s essential for clinicians “to perform timely comprehensive molecular and genomic tests on all AML patients at diagnosis and relapse to determine which individuals would benefit from targeted therapy versus cytotoxic chemotherapy. And participation in clinical trials at every stage of AML therapy can help accelerate clinical development of new agents for this disease.”

Dr. Fathi discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Rigel, Autolus, Amgen, Servier, Takeda, Orum, Menarini, Remix, AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, Ibsen, Gilead, Genentech, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Wang discloses ties with AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, CTI Biopharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Kite, Kura, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel, Sellas, and Sumitomo Pharma. Dr. Grieselhuber has no disclosures.

For patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), especially those who are older or have relapsed/refractory disease, standard chemotherapy treatments often fail to change their poor clinical trajectories. These days, however, a new era of targeted therapy is improving prognoses somewhat – and raising hopes that even bigger advancements are on the horizon.

“We went almost 3 decades with nothing, then all of a sudden we’ve had nine approvals in 5 or 6 years,” said Harvard Medical School, Boston, leukemia specialist Amir Fathi, MD, in an interview. “We’ve had a lot of advancement and a number of good options emerge.”

However, Dr. Fathi and other hematologists cautioned that the treatment landscape is becoming more complex to navigate. And they noted that prognoses for many older patients with AML remain grim. The expensive new treatments may only extend their lifespans by a matter of months, although some are surviving for years.

As the specialists explained, there are a variety of reasons why AML is especially difficult to treat.

“AML is one of the fastest growing human cancers, with tumor cell doubling times measured in mere hours in some patients. Therefore patients can present critically ill with white blood cell counts in the [hundreds of thousands of white blood cells per microliter instead of the normal range of 4,000-11,000]," said leukemia specialist Eunice S. Wang, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y. “Because blood cells are found in every organ of the body, the sheer volume of rapidly growing cancer cells can overwhelm multiple organ systems in a very short amount of time. These rapid growing cells and the fact that the median age of diagnosis with AML is 67-70 years old makes this a clinically challenging cancer to treat. Chemotherapy strong enough to kill cancer cells run the risk of also harming the patient as well.”

Also, older patients often have comorbidities, and they face risks of infection from both the disease and its treatments, said AML specialist Nicole R. Grieselhuber, MD, PhD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, in an interview.

Enter targeted therapy, which “has allowed individuals who previously were not candidates for cytotoxic chemotherapy because of their age or possible toxicities to receive effective therapy for AML,” Dr. Wang said. “Therapy directed at specific biological features of AML cells such as mutations (FLT3, IDH1, IDH2) or surface proteins (CD33) can augment the efficacy of conventional chemotherapy or in some cases (i.e., FLT3 inhibitors) be more effective than chemotherapy in controlling AML.”

Targeted therapy drugs “are expected to more selectively kill cancer cells and spare normal counterparts,” she added.

The FDA has approved nine targeted therapy drugs for AML in the last few years.

Retinoic acid and arsenic trioxide therapy for acute promyelocytic leukemia “has transformed this AML subtype into one of the most curable AML diseases,” Dr. Wang said. A 2017 long-term analysis of the drug combination found that complete remission was reached in 96% of 54 high-risk patients and 133 low-risk patients; the 5-year survival rate was 88%. (Some patients also received gemtuzumab ozogamicin, a CD33 antibody-drug conjugate.)

According to Dr. Wang, three FLT3 inhibitors have been approved for AML with the FLT3 mutation: midostaurin and quizartinib in the frontline setting in conjunction with intensive chemotherapy and gilteritinib for relapsed/refractory FLT3-mutant AML.

A 2017 study linked midostaurin plus chemotherapy to longer survival (hazard ratio for death = 0.78; P = .009), versus placebo plus chemotherapy, in patients aged 18-59. This year, a phase 3 randomized trial of quizartinib versus placebo linked the drug to longer survival median overall (31.9 months versus 15.1 months; P = .032) In a 2019 trial, patients who took gilteritinib had longer median overall survival (9.3 months versus 5.6 months; HR for death = 0.64; P < .001).

The success of these treatments “has led FLT3 mutant AML to be reclassified from a poor risk AML subtype to intermediate risk AML,” Dr. Wang said.

A 2022 report about FLT3 inhibitors cautioned, however, that “several drug resistance mechanisms have been identified” and added that “the benefit of FLT3 inhibitor maintenance therapy, either post chemotherapy or post transplant, remains controversial, although several studies are ongoing.”

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin is a monoclonal antibody connected to a chemotherapy drug, according to the American Cancer Society. “The addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to intensive chemotherapy has enhanced outcomes of favorable and intermediate risk disease,” Dr. Wang said.

Ivosidenib, olutasidenib, and enasidenib target the IDH1 or IDH2 genes in ADL. “These drugs seem to work by helping the leukemia cells mature (differentiate) into more normal cells,” according to the American Cancer Society. “Because of this, they are sometimes referred to as differentiation agents.”

In older adults, a combination treatment with venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, and a hypomethylating agent has become standard, Ohio State’s Dr. Grieselhuber said. The treatment is FDA approved.

There are caveats to targeted therapy in AML. The treatments can be enormously expensive, “and even patients with insurance are often shocked by the copay,” Dr. Grieselhuber said. It helps to work with pharmacists, social workers, or nurse navigators to help patients afford the treatments, she said.

Side effects vary by therapy and can include QT elongation and differentiation syndrome.

Most challenging of all, many AML patients still face shortened lifespans even if new treatments are available for them.

“Typically for older patients with AML, the lifespan of patients with therapy was 5-7 months and without therapy was 2-3 months,” Dr. Wang said. “Now, with regimens specifically designed for elderly and/or unfit subjects, many individuals are now routinely living more than a year: 14-18 months to 3-4 years.”

But “the vast majority of AML patients will still die of their disease with overall 5-year outcomes still less than 30% in all age categories,” she said. In addition, “fewer than 50% of AML patients are eligible for treatment with FDA-approved targeted therapies, as their disease biology does not express the mutation or protein needed for efficacy.”

Still, she said, “this represents a vast improvement.” And, she added, “in younger individuals, the combination of chemotherapy followed by allogeneic transplant has now permitted more of these individuals to be cured of their disease.” Dr. Grieselhuber noted that transplants are now considered appropriate even for patients in their 60s or early 70s, and they can be combined with targeted therapy.

Dr. Grieselhuber urged colleagues to keep in mind that quality-of-life preferences will play a role in some patient choices. For example, a elderly patient may reject burdensome infusion therapy and choose a pill instead, even if it has less efficacy. “There’s really no one-size-fits-all,” she said.

And, she added, it can be difficult to make choices about treatment because of the lack of randomized, head-to-head data regarding new therapies.

What’s on the horizon? Dr. Wang highlighted a novel class of targeted therapies called menin inhibitors for patients with NPM1-mutated AML, which she said accounts for one-third of patients with the disease. A treatment targeting disease in the 5%-10% patients with the KMT2A gene is also in the works, she said.

For now, Dr. Wang said it’s essential for clinicians “to perform timely comprehensive molecular and genomic tests on all AML patients at diagnosis and relapse to determine which individuals would benefit from targeted therapy versus cytotoxic chemotherapy. And participation in clinical trials at every stage of AML therapy can help accelerate clinical development of new agents for this disease.”

Dr. Fathi discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Rigel, Autolus, Amgen, Servier, Takeda, Orum, Menarini, Remix, AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, Ibsen, Gilead, Genentech, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Wang discloses ties with AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, CTI Biopharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Kite, Kura, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel, Sellas, and Sumitomo Pharma. Dr. Grieselhuber has no disclosures.

Sirisha Manyam, DO, eagerly looks forward to attending Association of VA Hematology and Oncology (AVAHO) 2023 and participating in discussion concerning two central topics: women's health and clinician wellness. Recognizing and meeting the distinctive stressors faced by healthcare workers, which have produced alarming rates of burnout, is an apt priority for Veterans Affairs systems, Dr Maryam suggests, and one which is paralleled by the need to engage the unique challenges faced by women, specifically the cluster of considerations surrounding breast cancer treatment.

Sirisha Manyam, DO, eagerly looks forward to attending Association of VA Hematology and Oncology (AVAHO) 2023 and participating in discussion concerning two central topics: women's health and clinician wellness. Recognizing and meeting the distinctive stressors faced by healthcare workers, which have produced alarming rates of burnout, is an apt priority for Veterans Affairs systems, Dr Maryam suggests, and one which is paralleled by the need to engage the unique challenges faced by women, specifically the cluster of considerations surrounding breast cancer treatment.

Sirisha Manyam, DO, eagerly looks forward to attending Association of VA Hematology and Oncology (AVAHO) 2023 and participating in discussion concerning two central topics: women's health and clinician wellness. Recognizing and meeting the distinctive stressors faced by healthcare workers, which have produced alarming rates of burnout, is an apt priority for Veterans Affairs systems, Dr Maryam suggests, and one which is paralleled by the need to engage the unique challenges faced by women, specifically the cluster of considerations surrounding breast cancer treatment.

Timothy O'Brien, MD, shares his expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO conference. Dr O'Brien highlights four key areas of interest: networking with providers from other VA systems; creating more clinical trial opportunities; exploring educational sessions on topics like AI in oncology and geriatric oncology; and fostering team building within the local VA group. With an area of focus in malignant hematology, particularly multiple myeloma, Dr O'Brien sees learning opportunities within the education sessions on geriatric oncology. Considering that the average age of patients with multiple myeloma at his institution is 70 years, he looks forward to gaining valuable strategies for geriatric assessment.

Timothy O'Brien, MD, shares his expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO conference. Dr O'Brien highlights four key areas of interest: networking with providers from other VA systems; creating more clinical trial opportunities; exploring educational sessions on topics like AI in oncology and geriatric oncology; and fostering team building within the local VA group. With an area of focus in malignant hematology, particularly multiple myeloma, Dr O'Brien sees learning opportunities within the education sessions on geriatric oncology. Considering that the average age of patients with multiple myeloma at his institution is 70 years, he looks forward to gaining valuable strategies for geriatric assessment.

Timothy O'Brien, MD, shares his expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO conference. Dr O'Brien highlights four key areas of interest: networking with providers from other VA systems; creating more clinical trial opportunities; exploring educational sessions on topics like AI in oncology and geriatric oncology; and fostering team building within the local VA group. With an area of focus in malignant hematology, particularly multiple myeloma, Dr O'Brien sees learning opportunities within the education sessions on geriatric oncology. Considering that the average age of patients with multiple myeloma at his institution is 70 years, he looks forward to gaining valuable strategies for geriatric assessment.

Soo Park, MD, discusses her expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO meeting in Chicago. Two items on the agenda particularly stand out: the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology and the importance of cancer patient navigation. Dr Park acknowledges AI's potential to transform cancer diagnostics and drug discovery, particularly in aiding molecular profiling. Additionally, she highlights the value of cancer patient navigators in optimizing veteran care, particularly in the setting of geriatric oncology.

Soo Park, MD, discusses her expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO meeting in Chicago. Two items on the agenda particularly stand out: the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology and the importance of cancer patient navigation. Dr Park acknowledges AI's potential to transform cancer diagnostics and drug discovery, particularly in aiding molecular profiling. Additionally, she highlights the value of cancer patient navigators in optimizing veteran care, particularly in the setting of geriatric oncology.

Soo Park, MD, discusses her expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO meeting in Chicago. Two items on the agenda particularly stand out: the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology and the importance of cancer patient navigation. Dr Park acknowledges AI's potential to transform cancer diagnostics and drug discovery, particularly in aiding molecular profiling. Additionally, she highlights the value of cancer patient navigators in optimizing veteran care, particularly in the setting of geriatric oncology.