AVAHO

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

People who do 4-5 minutes of vigorous physical activity daily can reduce their cancer risk by up to 32%, a new study published in  JAMA Oncology says.

Researchers at the University of Sydney studied data from wearable fitness devices worn by more than 22,000 “non-exercisers,” then examined their health records for 6 or 7 years. 

The scientists found that people who did 4-5 minutes of “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” (VILPA) had a “substantially” lower cancer risk than people who did no VILPA. 

Examples of VILPA are vigorous housework, carrying heavy shopping bags around the grocery store, bursts of power walking, and playing high-energy games with children. The activities could occur in 1-minute bursts, instead of all at once.

Getty Images/Kentaroo Tryman

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

People who do 4-5 minutes of vigorous physical activity daily can reduce their cancer risk by up to 32%, a new study published in  JAMA Oncology says.

Researchers at the University of Sydney studied data from wearable fitness devices worn by more than 22,000 “non-exercisers,” then examined their health records for 6 or 7 years. 

The scientists found that people who did 4-5 minutes of “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” (VILPA) had a “substantially” lower cancer risk than people who did no VILPA. 

Examples of VILPA are vigorous housework, carrying heavy shopping bags around the grocery store, bursts of power walking, and playing high-energy games with children. The activities could occur in 1-minute bursts, instead of all at once.

Getty Images/Kentaroo Tryman

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

People who do 4-5 minutes of vigorous physical activity daily can reduce their cancer risk by up to 32%, a new study published in  JAMA Oncology says.

Researchers at the University of Sydney studied data from wearable fitness devices worn by more than 22,000 “non-exercisers,” then examined their health records for 6 or 7 years. 

The scientists found that people who did 4-5 minutes of “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” (VILPA) had a “substantially” lower cancer risk than people who did no VILPA. 

Examples of VILPA are vigorous housework, carrying heavy shopping bags around the grocery store, bursts of power walking, and playing high-energy games with children. The activities could occur in 1-minute bursts, instead of all at once.

Getty Images/Kentaroo Tryman

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

TOPLINE

The use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer reduces the risk of acute urinary side effects of grade 2 or higher by 44% and the risk of acute bowel side effects of grade 2 or higher by 60%, compared with standard CT-guided SBRT (CT‐SBRT).

METHODOLOGY

• With the use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive SBRT, clinicians can customize radiation dosing to accommodate changes in prostate anatomy during treatment, which may also make SBRT safer and less toxic for patients.
• To determine whether this approach does reduce patient side effects, investigators ran a meta-analysis that included 29 studies with 2547 patients comparing the incidence of short-term, physician-assessed bowel and genitourinary side effects between the MRI-guided approach and standard CT-SBRT.
• The investigators reported no statistically significant differences in age, prescribed radiation doses, planning target volumes, or International Prostatism Symptom Scores between the two groups; the use of rectal spacers and the number of patients who received pelvic lymph node radiation were low in both.
• The average window for collecting acute toxicity data was 70 days in the MRI-guided investigations and 94 days in CT-SBRT investigations.

TAKEAWAY

• The pooled estimate for acute grade 2 or higher genitourinary toxicity was 16% with MRI-guided SBRT versus 28% with CT-SBRT (odds ratio, 0.56; P = .04).
• The pooled estimate for grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity was 4% with the MRI approach versus 9% with CT-SBRT (OR, 0.40; P = .04).
• There were no differences in grade 3 or higher events, which were rare, between the groups.
• There was also no difference in toxicity among CT‐SBRT studies that used fiducial markers and those that did not.

IN PRACTICE

“These findings suggest that the technical advantages in precision of radiotherapy delivery afforded by [MRI-guided] SBRT translate to measurable clinical benefit,” the authors concluded. Potential reasons for the reduced risk of acute toxicity with the MRI-guided approach include “daily online adaptive planning, MRI‐based contouring that results in smaller treatment volumes, and MRI tracking, all of which may facilitate the precision and accuracy of treatment delivery.”

SOURCE

The study was led by Jonathan Leeman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and was published July 24 in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS

• The analysis did not account for differences in dosimetry, radiation planning, and toxicity management and assessment between the studies.
• Late toxicity and cancer control rates were not tracked and may have differed between the two approaches.

DISCLOSURES

• No external funding was reported.
• The investigators reported grants and consulting, personal, and other payments from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE

The use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer reduces the risk of acute urinary side effects of grade 2 or higher by 44% and the risk of acute bowel side effects of grade 2 or higher by 60%, compared with standard CT-guided SBRT (CT‐SBRT).

METHODOLOGY

• With the use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive SBRT, clinicians can customize radiation dosing to accommodate changes in prostate anatomy during treatment, which may also make SBRT safer and less toxic for patients.
• To determine whether this approach does reduce patient side effects, investigators ran a meta-analysis that included 29 studies with 2547 patients comparing the incidence of short-term, physician-assessed bowel and genitourinary side effects between the MRI-guided approach and standard CT-SBRT.
• The investigators reported no statistically significant differences in age, prescribed radiation doses, planning target volumes, or International Prostatism Symptom Scores between the two groups; the use of rectal spacers and the number of patients who received pelvic lymph node radiation were low in both.
• The average window for collecting acute toxicity data was 70 days in the MRI-guided investigations and 94 days in CT-SBRT investigations.

TAKEAWAY

• The pooled estimate for acute grade 2 or higher genitourinary toxicity was 16% with MRI-guided SBRT versus 28% with CT-SBRT (odds ratio, 0.56; P = .04).
• The pooled estimate for grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity was 4% with the MRI approach versus 9% with CT-SBRT (OR, 0.40; P = .04).
• There were no differences in grade 3 or higher events, which were rare, between the groups.
• There was also no difference in toxicity among CT‐SBRT studies that used fiducial markers and those that did not.

IN PRACTICE

“These findings suggest that the technical advantages in precision of radiotherapy delivery afforded by [MRI-guided] SBRT translate to measurable clinical benefit,” the authors concluded. Potential reasons for the reduced risk of acute toxicity with the MRI-guided approach include “daily online adaptive planning, MRI‐based contouring that results in smaller treatment volumes, and MRI tracking, all of which may facilitate the precision and accuracy of treatment delivery.”

SOURCE

The study was led by Jonathan Leeman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and was published July 24 in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS

• The analysis did not account for differences in dosimetry, radiation planning, and toxicity management and assessment between the studies.
• Late toxicity and cancer control rates were not tracked and may have differed between the two approaches.

DISCLOSURES

• No external funding was reported.
• The investigators reported grants and consulting, personal, and other payments from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE

The use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer reduces the risk of acute urinary side effects of grade 2 or higher by 44% and the risk of acute bowel side effects of grade 2 or higher by 60%, compared with standard CT-guided SBRT (CT‐SBRT).

METHODOLOGY

• With the use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive SBRT, clinicians can customize radiation dosing to accommodate changes in prostate anatomy during treatment, which may also make SBRT safer and less toxic for patients.
• To determine whether this approach does reduce patient side effects, investigators ran a meta-analysis that included 29 studies with 2547 patients comparing the incidence of short-term, physician-assessed bowel and genitourinary side effects between the MRI-guided approach and standard CT-SBRT.
• The investigators reported no statistically significant differences in age, prescribed radiation doses, planning target volumes, or International Prostatism Symptom Scores between the two groups; the use of rectal spacers and the number of patients who received pelvic lymph node radiation were low in both.
• The average window for collecting acute toxicity data was 70 days in the MRI-guided investigations and 94 days in CT-SBRT investigations.

TAKEAWAY

• The pooled estimate for acute grade 2 or higher genitourinary toxicity was 16% with MRI-guided SBRT versus 28% with CT-SBRT (odds ratio, 0.56; P = .04).
• The pooled estimate for grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity was 4% with the MRI approach versus 9% with CT-SBRT (OR, 0.40; P = .04).
• There were no differences in grade 3 or higher events, which were rare, between the groups.
• There was also no difference in toxicity among CT‐SBRT studies that used fiducial markers and those that did not.

IN PRACTICE

“These findings suggest that the technical advantages in precision of radiotherapy delivery afforded by [MRI-guided] SBRT translate to measurable clinical benefit,” the authors concluded. Potential reasons for the reduced risk of acute toxicity with the MRI-guided approach include “daily online adaptive planning, MRI‐based contouring that results in smaller treatment volumes, and MRI tracking, all of which may facilitate the precision and accuracy of treatment delivery.”

SOURCE

The study was led by Jonathan Leeman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and was published July 24 in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS

• The analysis did not account for differences in dosimetry, radiation planning, and toxicity management and assessment between the studies.
• Late toxicity and cancer control rates were not tracked and may have differed between the two approaches.

DISCLOSURES

• No external funding was reported.
• The investigators reported grants and consulting, personal, and other payments from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Monitoring early-response biomarkers in patients receiving lutetium-177 (¹⁷⁷Lu)–PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may allow physicians to personalize dosing intervals and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.

The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.

Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.

In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 1⁷⁷Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.

The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and ¹⁷⁷Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.

The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.

Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.

Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.

Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.

Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.

“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.

Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Monitoring early-response biomarkers in patients receiving lutetium-177 (¹⁷⁷Lu)–PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may allow physicians to personalize dosing intervals and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.

The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.

Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.

In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 1⁷⁷Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.

The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and ¹⁷⁷Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.

The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.

Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.

Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.

Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.

Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.

“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.

Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Monitoring early-response biomarkers in patients receiving lutetium-177 (¹⁷⁷Lu)–PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may allow physicians to personalize dosing intervals and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.

The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.

Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.

In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 1⁷⁷Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.

The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and ¹⁷⁷Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.

The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.

Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.

Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.

Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.

Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.

“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.

Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

Patients with cancer are at a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—in fact, it’s one of the leading causes of death in patients who receive systemic therapy for cancer. But as cancer treatment has evolved, have the incidence and risk of VTE changed too?

Researchers from Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts conducted a study with 434,203 veterans to evaluate the pattern of VTE incidence over 16 years, focusing on the types of cancer, treatment, race and ethnicity, and other factors related to cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

In contrast with other large population studies, this study found the overall incidence of CAT remained largely stable over time. At 12 months, the incidence was 4.5%, with yearly trends ranging between 4.2% and 4.7%. “As expected,” the researchers say, the subset of patients receiving systemic therapy had a higher incidence of VTE at 12 months (7.7%) than did the overall cohort. The pattern was “particularly pronounced” in gynecologic, testicular, and kidney cancers, where the incidence of VTE was 2 to 3 times higher in the treated cohort compared with the overall cohort. 

Cancer type and diagnosis were the most statistically and clinically significant associations with CAT, with up to a 6-fold difference between cancer subtypes. The patients at the highest risk of VTE were those with pancreatic cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Most studies have focused only on patients with solid tumors, but these researchers observed novel patterns among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Specifically, a higher incidence of VTE among patients with aggressive vs indolent leukemias and lymphomas. This trend, the researchers say, may be associated in part with catheter-related events.

Furthermore, the type of system treatment was associated with the risk of VTE, the researchers say, although to a lesser extent. Chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-based regimens had the highest risk of VTE, relative to no treatment. Targeted and endocrine therapy also carried a higher risk compared with no treatment but to a lesser degree.

The researchers found significant heterogeneity by race and ethnicity across cancer types. Non-Hispanic Black patients had about 20% higher risk of VTE compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Asian and Pacific Islander patients had about 20% lower risk compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

Male sex was also associated with VTE. However, “interestingly,” the researchers note, neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors and patients’ comorbidities were not associated with CAT but were associated with mortality.

Their results suggest that patient- and treatment-specific factors play a critical role in assessing the risk of CAT, and “ongoing efforts to identify these patterns are of utmost importance for risk stratification and prognostic assessment.”

Patients with cancer are at a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—in fact, it’s one of the leading causes of death in patients who receive systemic therapy for cancer. But as cancer treatment has evolved, have the incidence and risk of VTE changed too?

Researchers from Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts conducted a study with 434,203 veterans to evaluate the pattern of VTE incidence over 16 years, focusing on the types of cancer, treatment, race and ethnicity, and other factors related to cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

In contrast with other large population studies, this study found the overall incidence of CAT remained largely stable over time. At 12 months, the incidence was 4.5%, with yearly trends ranging between 4.2% and 4.7%. “As expected,” the researchers say, the subset of patients receiving systemic therapy had a higher incidence of VTE at 12 months (7.7%) than did the overall cohort. The pattern was “particularly pronounced” in gynecologic, testicular, and kidney cancers, where the incidence of VTE was 2 to 3 times higher in the treated cohort compared with the overall cohort. 

Cancer type and diagnosis were the most statistically and clinically significant associations with CAT, with up to a 6-fold difference between cancer subtypes. The patients at the highest risk of VTE were those with pancreatic cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Most studies have focused only on patients with solid tumors, but these researchers observed novel patterns among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Specifically, a higher incidence of VTE among patients with aggressive vs indolent leukemias and lymphomas. This trend, the researchers say, may be associated in part with catheter-related events.

Furthermore, the type of system treatment was associated with the risk of VTE, the researchers say, although to a lesser extent. Chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-based regimens had the highest risk of VTE, relative to no treatment. Targeted and endocrine therapy also carried a higher risk compared with no treatment but to a lesser degree.

The researchers found significant heterogeneity by race and ethnicity across cancer types. Non-Hispanic Black patients had about 20% higher risk of VTE compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Asian and Pacific Islander patients had about 20% lower risk compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

Male sex was also associated with VTE. However, “interestingly,” the researchers note, neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors and patients’ comorbidities were not associated with CAT but were associated with mortality.

Their results suggest that patient- and treatment-specific factors play a critical role in assessing the risk of CAT, and “ongoing efforts to identify these patterns are of utmost importance for risk stratification and prognostic assessment.”

Patients with cancer are at a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—in fact, it’s one of the leading causes of death in patients who receive systemic therapy for cancer. But as cancer treatment has evolved, have the incidence and risk of VTE changed too?

Researchers from Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts conducted a study with 434,203 veterans to evaluate the pattern of VTE incidence over 16 years, focusing on the types of cancer, treatment, race and ethnicity, and other factors related to cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

In contrast with other large population studies, this study found the overall incidence of CAT remained largely stable over time. At 12 months, the incidence was 4.5%, with yearly trends ranging between 4.2% and 4.7%. “As expected,” the researchers say, the subset of patients receiving systemic therapy had a higher incidence of VTE at 12 months (7.7%) than did the overall cohort. The pattern was “particularly pronounced” in gynecologic, testicular, and kidney cancers, where the incidence of VTE was 2 to 3 times higher in the treated cohort compared with the overall cohort. 

Cancer type and diagnosis were the most statistically and clinically significant associations with CAT, with up to a 6-fold difference between cancer subtypes. The patients at the highest risk of VTE were those with pancreatic cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Most studies have focused only on patients with solid tumors, but these researchers observed novel patterns among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Specifically, a higher incidence of VTE among patients with aggressive vs indolent leukemias and lymphomas. This trend, the researchers say, may be associated in part with catheter-related events.

Furthermore, the type of system treatment was associated with the risk of VTE, the researchers say, although to a lesser extent. Chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-based regimens had the highest risk of VTE, relative to no treatment. Targeted and endocrine therapy also carried a higher risk compared with no treatment but to a lesser degree.

The researchers found significant heterogeneity by race and ethnicity across cancer types. Non-Hispanic Black patients had about 20% higher risk of VTE compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Asian and Pacific Islander patients had about 20% lower risk compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

Male sex was also associated with VTE. However, “interestingly,” the researchers note, neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors and patients’ comorbidities were not associated with CAT but were associated with mortality.

Their results suggest that patient- and treatment-specific factors play a critical role in assessing the risk of CAT, and “ongoing efforts to identify these patterns are of utmost importance for risk stratification and prognostic assessment.”

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

The National Cancer Institute recently released a publicly available oral cancer survival calculator for people recently diagnosed with oral cancer.

This represents the first cancer survival calculator that provides “personalized estimates of the likelihood of surviving or dying from oral cancer or other causes,” according to the experts who developed the tool.

An analysis evaluating the new calculator revealed that people with oral cancer are more likely to die from other causes, compared with their peers without oral cancer, and that noncancer survival worsens with cancer stage.

With its unique design, the calculator “represents perhaps one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive tools to date by integrating multiple population-level data sources to account for general health status [and] disease exposures,” such as alcohol and tobacco, socioeconomic status, and coexisting conditions, the authors of an accompanying commentary wrote.

This calculator may just be the beginning. The broader aim of developing the tool, the study authors explained, is for this new calculator approach to be “applicable for developing future prognostic models of cancer and noncancer aspects of a person’s health in other cancers.”

The analysis was published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery.

When assessing survival, factors such as cancer stage and tumor size are key, but comorbidities also play a crucial role. For oral cancer in particular, where alcohol and tobacco use are notorious risk factors, comorbidities occur frequently and are often serious.

To create a model that provides more “holistic and personalized” estimates and includes a host of factors that can affect the risk of death, the authors tapped into data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to develop the SEER Oral Cancer Survival Calculator.

Alongside data from the SEER database, the calculator used data from the National Health Interview Survey’s Longitudinal Mortality Files to obtain estimates of general health status, life expectancy without cancer, and the probability of dying from the cancer or from other causes within 1-10 years among people with newly diagnosed oral cancer.

Overall, the data included 22,392 patients, aged 20-94, with oral squamous cell carcinoma, 60.5% of whom were male and 78% White, as well as 402,626 interviewees from the survey. The calculator did not include patients with tonsil- or tongue-based cancers, which were not considered anatomically part of the oral cavity.

The most common conditions coexisting with oral cancer were diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among older patients. Among those with oral cancer, more than half (52.8%) had none of the major coexisting conditions, which also included peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, compared with 80% of the Medicare population.

The researchers described and validated four models – one that estimated the probability of death due to oral cancer, and then three others that estimated the probability of death from other causes, with variations based on the specific data and covariates included.

Overall, the models in the calculator estimated that patients with oral cancer have a higher risk of death from other causes, compared with the general population, and survival estimates for noncancer causes got worse with more advanced cancer stage.

For instance, for a patient diagnosed with stage 3 oral cancer after age 50, the chances of being alive at age 70 were 60% for females and 44% for males in the absence of cancer, whereas the corresponding survival estimates in the general U.S. population were 86% for females and 79% for males – an absolute difference of 26 and 35 percentage points.

One key reason for this trend is that patients with later-stage cancers likely also have more coexisting health conditions, first author Louise Davies, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., explained.

Another reason: For cancers with low enough mortality rates, people might be more likely to die from causes other than their cancer. This can also occur in ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer or papillary thyroid cancer, noted Dr. Davies, also from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt.

Commenting on the study, Eric Moore, MD, a head and neck surgeon with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that while such prediction tools are important, they also come with caveats.

“I think these calculators are helpful and certainly having them widely available to people gives them another piece of knowledge that can be powerful,” he told this news organization. “But you want to make sure you don’t interpret them as the end-all, be-all message, because there are an infinite number of variables that could influence survival that aren’t available in some of these datasets.”

Neil D. Gross, MD, a professor of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed. Although this new calculator uses a large dataset, such tools “can be imperfect” and some factors simply can’t be calculated, such as a person’s priorities, Dr. Gross said.

That’s why there’s no substitute for having a “very personal discussion between a patient and a physician to decide what’s best.” And this calculator is just one tool to help with that process, Dr. Gross said.

The commentary authors echoed these sentiments. “This calculator can potentially bridge the gaps between the survival estimates in the literature, life tables, clinical gestalt, and physician attempts to contextualize the inherent limitations of applying survival curves and averages to the one patient with the diagnosis,” wrote Leila J. Mady, MD, PhD, MPH, Wayne M. Koch, MD, and Carole Fakhry, MD, MPH, all from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.

But a caveat in providing such predictions is the possible psychological effect the news can have.

“Potential risks of revealing personalized prognostic survival estimates to patients include increased anxiety and distress surrounding competing causes of death [and] misinterpretation of data,” the commentary authors cautioned, adding that “we must present such information with grace and sensitivity.”

Dr. Davies recommends that clinicians ask patients what they want to know because that will vary by patient and potentially over time for the same patient.

“People are more than their cancer diagnosis,” said Dr. Davies. “Giving them the opportunity to consider their life as a whole is the aim.”

The oral cancer calculator can be publicly accessed through the National Cancer Institute. The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cancer Institute as part of an interagency agreement. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Cancer Institute recently released a publicly available oral cancer survival calculator for people recently diagnosed with oral cancer.

This represents the first cancer survival calculator that provides “personalized estimates of the likelihood of surviving or dying from oral cancer or other causes,” according to the experts who developed the tool.

An analysis evaluating the new calculator revealed that people with oral cancer are more likely to die from other causes, compared with their peers without oral cancer, and that noncancer survival worsens with cancer stage.

With its unique design, the calculator “represents perhaps one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive tools to date by integrating multiple population-level data sources to account for general health status [and] disease exposures,” such as alcohol and tobacco, socioeconomic status, and coexisting conditions, the authors of an accompanying commentary wrote.

This calculator may just be the beginning. The broader aim of developing the tool, the study authors explained, is for this new calculator approach to be “applicable for developing future prognostic models of cancer and noncancer aspects of a person’s health in other cancers.”

The analysis was published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery.

When assessing survival, factors such as cancer stage and tumor size are key, but comorbidities also play a crucial role. For oral cancer in particular, where alcohol and tobacco use are notorious risk factors, comorbidities occur frequently and are often serious.

To create a model that provides more “holistic and personalized” estimates and includes a host of factors that can affect the risk of death, the authors tapped into data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to develop the SEER Oral Cancer Survival Calculator.

Alongside data from the SEER database, the calculator used data from the National Health Interview Survey’s Longitudinal Mortality Files to obtain estimates of general health status, life expectancy without cancer, and the probability of dying from the cancer or from other causes within 1-10 years among people with newly diagnosed oral cancer.

Overall, the data included 22,392 patients, aged 20-94, with oral squamous cell carcinoma, 60.5% of whom were male and 78% White, as well as 402,626 interviewees from the survey. The calculator did not include patients with tonsil- or tongue-based cancers, which were not considered anatomically part of the oral cavity.

The most common conditions coexisting with oral cancer were diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among older patients. Among those with oral cancer, more than half (52.8%) had none of the major coexisting conditions, which also included peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, compared with 80% of the Medicare population.

The researchers described and validated four models – one that estimated the probability of death due to oral cancer, and then three others that estimated the probability of death from other causes, with variations based on the specific data and covariates included.

Overall, the models in the calculator estimated that patients with oral cancer have a higher risk of death from other causes, compared with the general population, and survival estimates for noncancer causes got worse with more advanced cancer stage.

For instance, for a patient diagnosed with stage 3 oral cancer after age 50, the chances of being alive at age 70 were 60% for females and 44% for males in the absence of cancer, whereas the corresponding survival estimates in the general U.S. population were 86% for females and 79% for males – an absolute difference of 26 and 35 percentage points.

One key reason for this trend is that patients with later-stage cancers likely also have more coexisting health conditions, first author Louise Davies, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., explained.

Another reason: For cancers with low enough mortality rates, people might be more likely to die from causes other than their cancer. This can also occur in ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer or papillary thyroid cancer, noted Dr. Davies, also from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt.

Commenting on the study, Eric Moore, MD, a head and neck surgeon with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that while such prediction tools are important, they also come with caveats.

“I think these calculators are helpful and certainly having them widely available to people gives them another piece of knowledge that can be powerful,” he told this news organization. “But you want to make sure you don’t interpret them as the end-all, be-all message, because there are an infinite number of variables that could influence survival that aren’t available in some of these datasets.”

Neil D. Gross, MD, a professor of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed. Although this new calculator uses a large dataset, such tools “can be imperfect” and some factors simply can’t be calculated, such as a person’s priorities, Dr. Gross said.

That’s why there’s no substitute for having a “very personal discussion between a patient and a physician to decide what’s best.” And this calculator is just one tool to help with that process, Dr. Gross said.

The commentary authors echoed these sentiments. “This calculator can potentially bridge the gaps between the survival estimates in the literature, life tables, clinical gestalt, and physician attempts to contextualize the inherent limitations of applying survival curves and averages to the one patient with the diagnosis,” wrote Leila J. Mady, MD, PhD, MPH, Wayne M. Koch, MD, and Carole Fakhry, MD, MPH, all from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.

But a caveat in providing such predictions is the possible psychological effect the news can have.

“Potential risks of revealing personalized prognostic survival estimates to patients include increased anxiety and distress surrounding competing causes of death [and] misinterpretation of data,” the commentary authors cautioned, adding that “we must present such information with grace and sensitivity.”

Dr. Davies recommends that clinicians ask patients what they want to know because that will vary by patient and potentially over time for the same patient.

“People are more than their cancer diagnosis,” said Dr. Davies. “Giving them the opportunity to consider their life as a whole is the aim.”

The oral cancer calculator can be publicly accessed through the National Cancer Institute. The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cancer Institute as part of an interagency agreement. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Cancer Institute recently released a publicly available oral cancer survival calculator for people recently diagnosed with oral cancer.

This represents the first cancer survival calculator that provides “personalized estimates of the likelihood of surviving or dying from oral cancer or other causes,” according to the experts who developed the tool.

An analysis evaluating the new calculator revealed that people with oral cancer are more likely to die from other causes, compared with their peers without oral cancer, and that noncancer survival worsens with cancer stage.

With its unique design, the calculator “represents perhaps one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive tools to date by integrating multiple population-level data sources to account for general health status [and] disease exposures,” such as alcohol and tobacco, socioeconomic status, and coexisting conditions, the authors of an accompanying commentary wrote.

This calculator may just be the beginning. The broader aim of developing the tool, the study authors explained, is for this new calculator approach to be “applicable for developing future prognostic models of cancer and noncancer aspects of a person’s health in other cancers.”

The analysis was published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery.

When assessing survival, factors such as cancer stage and tumor size are key, but comorbidities also play a crucial role. For oral cancer in particular, where alcohol and tobacco use are notorious risk factors, comorbidities occur frequently and are often serious.

To create a model that provides more “holistic and personalized” estimates and includes a host of factors that can affect the risk of death, the authors tapped into data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to develop the SEER Oral Cancer Survival Calculator.

Alongside data from the SEER database, the calculator used data from the National Health Interview Survey’s Longitudinal Mortality Files to obtain estimates of general health status, life expectancy without cancer, and the probability of dying from the cancer or from other causes within 1-10 years among people with newly diagnosed oral cancer.

Overall, the data included 22,392 patients, aged 20-94, with oral squamous cell carcinoma, 60.5% of whom were male and 78% White, as well as 402,626 interviewees from the survey. The calculator did not include patients with tonsil- or tongue-based cancers, which were not considered anatomically part of the oral cavity.

The most common conditions coexisting with oral cancer were diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among older patients. Among those with oral cancer, more than half (52.8%) had none of the major coexisting conditions, which also included peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, compared with 80% of the Medicare population.

The researchers described and validated four models – one that estimated the probability of death due to oral cancer, and then three others that estimated the probability of death from other causes, with variations based on the specific data and covariates included.

Overall, the models in the calculator estimated that patients with oral cancer have a higher risk of death from other causes, compared with the general population, and survival estimates for noncancer causes got worse with more advanced cancer stage.

For instance, for a patient diagnosed with stage 3 oral cancer after age 50, the chances of being alive at age 70 were 60% for females and 44% for males in the absence of cancer, whereas the corresponding survival estimates in the general U.S. population were 86% for females and 79% for males – an absolute difference of 26 and 35 percentage points.

One key reason for this trend is that patients with later-stage cancers likely also have more coexisting health conditions, first author Louise Davies, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., explained.

Another reason: For cancers with low enough mortality rates, people might be more likely to die from causes other than their cancer. This can also occur in ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer or papillary thyroid cancer, noted Dr. Davies, also from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt.

Commenting on the study, Eric Moore, MD, a head and neck surgeon with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that while such prediction tools are important, they also come with caveats.

“I think these calculators are helpful and certainly having them widely available to people gives them another piece of knowledge that can be powerful,” he told this news organization. “But you want to make sure you don’t interpret them as the end-all, be-all message, because there are an infinite number of variables that could influence survival that aren’t available in some of these datasets.”

Neil D. Gross, MD, a professor of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed. Although this new calculator uses a large dataset, such tools “can be imperfect” and some factors simply can’t be calculated, such as a person’s priorities, Dr. Gross said.

That’s why there’s no substitute for having a “very personal discussion between a patient and a physician to decide what’s best.” And this calculator is just one tool to help with that process, Dr. Gross said.

The commentary authors echoed these sentiments. “This calculator can potentially bridge the gaps between the survival estimates in the literature, life tables, clinical gestalt, and physician attempts to contextualize the inherent limitations of applying survival curves and averages to the one patient with the diagnosis,” wrote Leila J. Mady, MD, PhD, MPH, Wayne M. Koch, MD, and Carole Fakhry, MD, MPH, all from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.

But a caveat in providing such predictions is the possible psychological effect the news can have.

“Potential risks of revealing personalized prognostic survival estimates to patients include increased anxiety and distress surrounding competing causes of death [and] misinterpretation of data,” the commentary authors cautioned, adding that “we must present such information with grace and sensitivity.”

Dr. Davies recommends that clinicians ask patients what they want to know because that will vary by patient and potentially over time for the same patient.

“People are more than their cancer diagnosis,” said Dr. Davies. “Giving them the opportunity to consider their life as a whole is the aim.”

The oral cancer calculator can be publicly accessed through the National Cancer Institute. The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cancer Institute as part of an interagency agreement. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved quizartinib (Vanflyta) for adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) that carries the FLT3-ITD genetic mutation.

On July 20 the FDA also approved the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to determine whether patients have this mutation.

The agency granted quizartinib a first-line indication for use in combination with standard chemotherapy – cytarabine and anthracycline induction followed by cytarabine consolidation – and as maintenance monotherapy afterwards, in adults whose tumors express FLT3-ITD.

The FLT3 protein is a tyrosine kinase receptor found on hematopoietic stem cells. Wild-type FLT3 promotes cell survival, growth, and differentiation, but ITD (internal tandem duplication)-mutated FLT3, which quizartinib targets, is associated with a higher relapse risk and shorter survival. About a quarter of AML patients carry the mutation. 

Approval was based on the phase 3 QuANTUM-First trial in over 500 patients with the mutation. Median overall survival among patients on standard chemotherapy randomly assigned to quizartinib was 31.9 months versus 15.1 months in patients randomly assigned to placebo, a 22.4% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0324).

Quizartinib is not indicated as maintenance monotherapy after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

In a company press release, the drug’s manufacturer Daiichi Sankyo said quizartinib will be available in the United States soon.

Company executive Ken Takeshita, MD, called the approval “an important milestone, as patients with the FLT3-ITD subtype of AML can now be treated with the first-ever FLT3 inhibitor approved across the three phases of treatment these patients typically receive.”

The FDA’s original decision date was April 24, but the agency pushed it back 3 months to review updates Daiichi Sankyo made to quizartinib’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program in response to an agency request.

Quizartinib carries a boxed warning of QT prolongation, torsades de pointes, and cardiac arrest. Because of these risks, it’s only available through a new program, dubbed “Vanflyta REMS.”

In the trial, the most common adverse with quizartinib included lymphopenia (60%), hypokalemia (59%), hypoalbuminemia (53%), hypophosphatemia (52%), alkaline phosphatase increased (51%), hypomagnesemia (44%), febrile neutropenia (44%), diarrhea (42%), mucositis (38%), nausea (34%), and hypocalcemia (33%), among others.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (43% with quizartinib vs. 41% with placebo), neutropenia (18% vs. 9%), hypokalemia (19% vs. 16%), and pneumonia (11% both). Adverse events were fatal in 11.3% of patients receiving quizartinib versus 9.7% of patients on placebo, mostly caused by infections.

In 2019, the FDA rejected quizartinib for FLT3-ITD mutated relapsed/refractory AML monotherapy in adults, after most of its oncology advisers thought the risk of treatment outweighed the benefits in an earlier trial.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved quizartinib (Vanflyta) for adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) that carries the FLT3-ITD genetic mutation.

On July 20 the FDA also approved the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to determine whether patients have this mutation.

The agency granted quizartinib a first-line indication for use in combination with standard chemotherapy – cytarabine and anthracycline induction followed by cytarabine consolidation – and as maintenance monotherapy afterwards, in adults whose tumors express FLT3-ITD.

The FLT3 protein is a tyrosine kinase receptor found on hematopoietic stem cells. Wild-type FLT3 promotes cell survival, growth, and differentiation, but ITD (internal tandem duplication)-mutated FLT3, which quizartinib targets, is associated with a higher relapse risk and shorter survival. About a quarter of AML patients carry the mutation. 

Approval was based on the phase 3 QuANTUM-First trial in over 500 patients with the mutation. Median overall survival among patients on standard chemotherapy randomly assigned to quizartinib was 31.9 months versus 15.1 months in patients randomly assigned to placebo, a 22.4% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0324).

Quizartinib is not indicated as maintenance monotherapy after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

In a company press release, the drug’s manufacturer Daiichi Sankyo said quizartinib will be available in the United States soon.

Company executive Ken Takeshita, MD, called the approval “an important milestone, as patients with the FLT3-ITD subtype of AML can now be treated with the first-ever FLT3 inhibitor approved across the three phases of treatment these patients typically receive.”

The FDA’s original decision date was April 24, but the agency pushed it back 3 months to review updates Daiichi Sankyo made to quizartinib’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program in response to an agency request.

Quizartinib carries a boxed warning of QT prolongation, torsades de pointes, and cardiac arrest. Because of these risks, it’s only available through a new program, dubbed “Vanflyta REMS.”

In the trial, the most common adverse with quizartinib included lymphopenia (60%), hypokalemia (59%), hypoalbuminemia (53%), hypophosphatemia (52%), alkaline phosphatase increased (51%), hypomagnesemia (44%), febrile neutropenia (44%), diarrhea (42%), mucositis (38%), nausea (34%), and hypocalcemia (33%), among others.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (43% with quizartinib vs. 41% with placebo), neutropenia (18% vs. 9%), hypokalemia (19% vs. 16%), and pneumonia (11% both). Adverse events were fatal in 11.3% of patients receiving quizartinib versus 9.7% of patients on placebo, mostly caused by infections.

In 2019, the FDA rejected quizartinib for FLT3-ITD mutated relapsed/refractory AML monotherapy in adults, after most of its oncology advisers thought the risk of treatment outweighed the benefits in an earlier trial.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved quizartinib (Vanflyta) for adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) that carries the FLT3-ITD genetic mutation.

On July 20 the FDA also approved the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to determine whether patients have this mutation.

The agency granted quizartinib a first-line indication for use in combination with standard chemotherapy – cytarabine and anthracycline induction followed by cytarabine consolidation – and as maintenance monotherapy afterwards, in adults whose tumors express FLT3-ITD.

The FLT3 protein is a tyrosine kinase receptor found on hematopoietic stem cells. Wild-type FLT3 promotes cell survival, growth, and differentiation, but ITD (internal tandem duplication)-mutated FLT3, which quizartinib targets, is associated with a higher relapse risk and shorter survival. About a quarter of AML patients carry the mutation. 

Approval was based on the phase 3 QuANTUM-First trial in over 500 patients with the mutation. Median overall survival among patients on standard chemotherapy randomly assigned to quizartinib was 31.9 months versus 15.1 months in patients randomly assigned to placebo, a 22.4% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0324).

Quizartinib is not indicated as maintenance monotherapy after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

In a company press release, the drug’s manufacturer Daiichi Sankyo said quizartinib will be available in the United States soon.

Company executive Ken Takeshita, MD, called the approval “an important milestone, as patients with the FLT3-ITD subtype of AML can now be treated with the first-ever FLT3 inhibitor approved across the three phases of treatment these patients typically receive.”

The FDA’s original decision date was April 24, but the agency pushed it back 3 months to review updates Daiichi Sankyo made to quizartinib’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program in response to an agency request.

Quizartinib carries a boxed warning of QT prolongation, torsades de pointes, and cardiac arrest. Because of these risks, it’s only available through a new program, dubbed “Vanflyta REMS.”

In the trial, the most common adverse with quizartinib included lymphopenia (60%), hypokalemia (59%), hypoalbuminemia (53%), hypophosphatemia (52%), alkaline phosphatase increased (51%), hypomagnesemia (44%), febrile neutropenia (44%), diarrhea (42%), mucositis (38%), nausea (34%), and hypocalcemia (33%), among others.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (43% with quizartinib vs. 41% with placebo), neutropenia (18% vs. 9%), hypokalemia (19% vs. 16%), and pneumonia (11% both). Adverse events were fatal in 11.3% of patients receiving quizartinib versus 9.7% of patients on placebo, mostly caused by infections.

In 2019, the FDA rejected quizartinib for FLT3-ITD mutated relapsed/refractory AML monotherapy in adults, after most of its oncology advisers thought the risk of treatment outweighed the benefits in an earlier trial.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers found that, prior to resection, performing a minimally invasive staging procedure on newly diagnosed patients with pancreatic cancer helped identify metastatic disease and cancer stage, and prompted a change in management in about one in five patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 1,004 patients who underwent staging laparoscopy at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., from January 2017 to December 2021. 
• Patients’ median age was 66 years; 48% of the cohort were female. 
• Tumor location was proximal in 644 patients (64%) and distal in 360 patients (36%); median tumor size was 29 mm. 
• Upfront resectable disease was present in 351 patients (35%), and borderline resectable or locally advanced anatomy was present in 653 (65%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 180 patients had a positive staging laparoscopy because of gross metastatic disease (n = 140) and/or positive peritoneal cytology (n = 96); patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before staging laparoscopy had lower rates of positive laparoscopy (14% vs. 22%; P = .002).
• When the analysis was restricted to chemo-naive patients who had concurrent peritoneal lavage performed, 95 of 419 patients (23%) had positive laparoscopy. 
• Among 721 patients who had a staged procedure with peritoneal washings, 151 (21%) had confirmed metastatic disease; cytology was positive in 96 (13%).
• Among patients with positive staging laparoscopy, median overall survival was 11 months in those with gross metastatic disease and 13 months in those with positive peritoneal cytology only (P = .40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Staging laparoscopy should be considered in the majority of patients prior to resection and/or initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, specifically in patients with high-risk features such as indeterminate extrapancreatic lesions on imaging, young age, large tumor size, distal tumor location, or elevated serum tumor markers,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Hallbera Gudmundsdottir, MD, of the Mayo Clinic was published in the  Journal of the American College of Surgeons  in June. 

LIMITATIONS:

Staging laparoscopy may have been performed in higher-risk patients in earlier years of the study. The Mayo Clinic is a high-volume pancreatic surgery center that sees high-risk patients with advances lesions. This study population may not be generalizable to the those at other centers.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any financial interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers found that, prior to resection, performing a minimally invasive staging procedure on newly diagnosed patients with pancreatic cancer helped identify metastatic disease and cancer stage, and prompted a change in management in about one in five patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 1,004 patients who underwent staging laparoscopy at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., from January 2017 to December 2021. 
• Patients’ median age was 66 years; 48% of the cohort were female. 
• Tumor location was proximal in 644 patients (64%) and distal in 360 patients (36%); median tumor size was 29 mm. 
• Upfront resectable disease was present in 351 patients (35%), and borderline resectable or locally advanced anatomy was present in 653 (65%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 180 patients had a positive staging laparoscopy because of gross metastatic disease (n = 140) and/or positive peritoneal cytology (n = 96); patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before staging laparoscopy had lower rates of positive laparoscopy (14% vs. 22%; P = .002).
• When the analysis was restricted to chemo-naive patients who had concurrent peritoneal lavage performed, 95 of 419 patients (23%) had positive laparoscopy. 
• Among 721 patients who had a staged procedure with peritoneal washings, 151 (21%) had confirmed metastatic disease; cytology was positive in 96 (13%).
• Among patients with positive staging laparoscopy, median overall survival was 11 months in those with gross metastatic disease and 13 months in those with positive peritoneal cytology only (P = .40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Staging laparoscopy should be considered in the majority of patients prior to resection and/or initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, specifically in patients with high-risk features such as indeterminate extrapancreatic lesions on imaging, young age, large tumor size, distal tumor location, or elevated serum tumor markers,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Hallbera Gudmundsdottir, MD, of the Mayo Clinic was published in the  Journal of the American College of Surgeons  in June. 

LIMITATIONS:

Staging laparoscopy may have been performed in higher-risk patients in earlier years of the study. The Mayo Clinic is a high-volume pancreatic surgery center that sees high-risk patients with advances lesions. This study population may not be generalizable to the those at other centers.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any financial interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers found that, prior to resection, performing a minimally invasive staging procedure on newly diagnosed patients with pancreatic cancer helped identify metastatic disease and cancer stage, and prompted a change in management in about one in five patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 1,004 patients who underwent staging laparoscopy at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., from January 2017 to December 2021. 
• Patients’ median age was 66 years; 48% of the cohort were female. 
• Tumor location was proximal in 644 patients (64%) and distal in 360 patients (36%); median tumor size was 29 mm. 
• Upfront resectable disease was present in 351 patients (35%), and borderline resectable or locally advanced anatomy was present in 653 (65%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 180 patients had a positive staging laparoscopy because of gross metastatic disease (n = 140) and/or positive peritoneal cytology (n = 96); patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before staging laparoscopy had lower rates of positive laparoscopy (14% vs. 22%; P = .002).
• When the analysis was restricted to chemo-naive patients who had concurrent peritoneal lavage performed, 95 of 419 patients (23%) had positive laparoscopy. 
• Among 721 patients who had a staged procedure with peritoneal washings, 151 (21%) had confirmed metastatic disease; cytology was positive in 96 (13%).
• Among patients with positive staging laparoscopy, median overall survival was 11 months in those with gross metastatic disease and 13 months in those with positive peritoneal cytology only (P = .40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Staging laparoscopy should be considered in the majority of patients prior to resection and/or initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, specifically in patients with high-risk features such as indeterminate extrapancreatic lesions on imaging, young age, large tumor size, distal tumor location, or elevated serum tumor markers,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Hallbera Gudmundsdottir, MD, of the Mayo Clinic was published in the  Journal of the American College of Surgeons  in June. 

LIMITATIONS:

Staging laparoscopy may have been performed in higher-risk patients in earlier years of the study. The Mayo Clinic is a high-volume pancreatic surgery center that sees high-risk patients with advances lesions. This study population may not be generalizable to the those at other centers.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any financial interests.

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