Federal Practitioner

Can green tea lower your risk of colorectal cancer? It depends on who – and what research – you believe. 

Evidence that links green tea and a lower risk of colorectal cancer goes both ways. Some researchers have found little or no significant risk from drinking the popular tea, while others point to a potential benefit. Now add two more studies – one that found no reduced risk and another that seems to strengthen the link between green tea and a lower risk of colon cancer. 

Randomized controlled trials – where some people get randomly assigned to drink green tea and others do not – are considered the gold standard of medical research. Combine the findings from several of these trials, the thinking goes, and the findings get even stronger. 

Combining random trials so far shows no advantage from green tea. But there may still be a benefit, said lead researcher Vishal Chandel, MD, who is affiliated with Suburban Community Hospital in Norristown, Pa. It could be that there are just not enough randomized controlled trials yet to show green tea has a protective effect.

“Many, many factors contribute to colorectal cancer, and one of them is diet. One thing which struck me was tea, because tea is something that people consume all over the world, and it has shown some stronger effects in Japan and in China,” said Dr. Chandel. 
 

Comparing hundreds of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues found three randomized controlled trials that looked at the link between green tea and colorectal cancer risk. Combined, the data included 451 people with colorectal cancer and 460 others without cancer who made up a control, or comparison, group. 

They found green tea consumption did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in a statically significant way. 

“There are only three randomized controlled trials from anywhere concerning green tea and colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. “We really need more. If we had 7, 8, or 10 … I’m very positive we will have a much stronger association to say that green tea can have a positive effect.”
 

Comparing thousands of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues also performed another study where they looked at less rigorous evidence – 10 cohort studies and 15 prospective case-control studies. These studies included 198,488 cancer cases and 581,556 controls. This time, they found a stronger link between green tea and a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. 

The “meta-analysis results indicate a lower tendency to develop colorectal cancer with green tea consumption, with reduced risk of colorectal cancer more pronounced in Asia than America or Europe,” the authors note. “Although there is insufficient epidemiological data to conclude at present that green tea can have protective effects in human beings.”

Dr. Chandel presented the findings of both studies in Vancouver at the American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting.
 

Why green tea?

Dr. Chandel said he studied colorectal cancer because it is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, accounting for about 10% of all new cancer cases in 2020, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Cancer Observatory data. It is also a common cause of cancer death globally, second only to lung cancer. 

Green tea contains high level of polyphenols known as catechins. The main catechin in green tea believed to provide cancer protective effects is epigallocatechin-3 gallate (EGCG). EGCG “has been shown in some studies to inhibit or prevent colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. 

EGCG is present in higher amounts in green tea, compared with black or oolong tea, because green tea is made from unfermented, unoxidized tea leaves.
 

Difficult to read the tea leaves

These studies “add to the literature, which remains undefined regarding the role of green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer,” Catherine Eng, MD, a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said when asked to comment.

Although combining three trials did not reveal a significant benefit, looking at a greater number of studies did in some populations, said Dr. Eng, codirector of gastrointestinal oncology and chair of surgical and medical oncology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. 

“Potential benefit for green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer was noted in the Asian cases but was not found to be statistically significant in the European or U.S. studies,” she said. “Currently, the role of dietary consumption of green tea on reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is not well established and requires further investigation.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Can green tea lower your risk of colorectal cancer? It depends on who – and what research – you believe. 

Evidence that links green tea and a lower risk of colorectal cancer goes both ways. Some researchers have found little or no significant risk from drinking the popular tea, while others point to a potential benefit. Now add two more studies – one that found no reduced risk and another that seems to strengthen the link between green tea and a lower risk of colon cancer. 

Randomized controlled trials – where some people get randomly assigned to drink green tea and others do not – are considered the gold standard of medical research. Combine the findings from several of these trials, the thinking goes, and the findings get even stronger. 

Combining random trials so far shows no advantage from green tea. But there may still be a benefit, said lead researcher Vishal Chandel, MD, who is affiliated with Suburban Community Hospital in Norristown, Pa. It could be that there are just not enough randomized controlled trials yet to show green tea has a protective effect.

“Many, many factors contribute to colorectal cancer, and one of them is diet. One thing which struck me was tea, because tea is something that people consume all over the world, and it has shown some stronger effects in Japan and in China,” said Dr. Chandel. 
 

Comparing hundreds of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues found three randomized controlled trials that looked at the link between green tea and colorectal cancer risk. Combined, the data included 451 people with colorectal cancer and 460 others without cancer who made up a control, or comparison, group. 

They found green tea consumption did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in a statically significant way. 

“There are only three randomized controlled trials from anywhere concerning green tea and colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. “We really need more. If we had 7, 8, or 10 … I’m very positive we will have a much stronger association to say that green tea can have a positive effect.”
 

Comparing thousands of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues also performed another study where they looked at less rigorous evidence – 10 cohort studies and 15 prospective case-control studies. These studies included 198,488 cancer cases and 581,556 controls. This time, they found a stronger link between green tea and a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. 

The “meta-analysis results indicate a lower tendency to develop colorectal cancer with green tea consumption, with reduced risk of colorectal cancer more pronounced in Asia than America or Europe,” the authors note. “Although there is insufficient epidemiological data to conclude at present that green tea can have protective effects in human beings.”

Dr. Chandel presented the findings of both studies in Vancouver at the American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting.
 

Why green tea?

Dr. Chandel said he studied colorectal cancer because it is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, accounting for about 10% of all new cancer cases in 2020, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Cancer Observatory data. It is also a common cause of cancer death globally, second only to lung cancer. 

Green tea contains high level of polyphenols known as catechins. The main catechin in green tea believed to provide cancer protective effects is epigallocatechin-3 gallate (EGCG). EGCG “has been shown in some studies to inhibit or prevent colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. 

EGCG is present in higher amounts in green tea, compared with black or oolong tea, because green tea is made from unfermented, unoxidized tea leaves.
 

Difficult to read the tea leaves

These studies “add to the literature, which remains undefined regarding the role of green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer,” Catherine Eng, MD, a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said when asked to comment.

Although combining three trials did not reveal a significant benefit, looking at a greater number of studies did in some populations, said Dr. Eng, codirector of gastrointestinal oncology and chair of surgical and medical oncology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. 

“Potential benefit for green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer was noted in the Asian cases but was not found to be statistically significant in the European or U.S. studies,” she said. “Currently, the role of dietary consumption of green tea on reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is not well established and requires further investigation.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Can green tea lower your risk of colorectal cancer? It depends on who – and what research – you believe. 

Evidence that links green tea and a lower risk of colorectal cancer goes both ways. Some researchers have found little or no significant risk from drinking the popular tea, while others point to a potential benefit. Now add two more studies – one that found no reduced risk and another that seems to strengthen the link between green tea and a lower risk of colon cancer. 

Randomized controlled trials – where some people get randomly assigned to drink green tea and others do not – are considered the gold standard of medical research. Combine the findings from several of these trials, the thinking goes, and the findings get even stronger. 

Combining random trials so far shows no advantage from green tea. But there may still be a benefit, said lead researcher Vishal Chandel, MD, who is affiliated with Suburban Community Hospital in Norristown, Pa. It could be that there are just not enough randomized controlled trials yet to show green tea has a protective effect.

“Many, many factors contribute to colorectal cancer, and one of them is diet. One thing which struck me was tea, because tea is something that people consume all over the world, and it has shown some stronger effects in Japan and in China,” said Dr. Chandel. 
 

Comparing hundreds of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues found three randomized controlled trials that looked at the link between green tea and colorectal cancer risk. Combined, the data included 451 people with colorectal cancer and 460 others without cancer who made up a control, or comparison, group. 

They found green tea consumption did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in a statically significant way. 

“There are only three randomized controlled trials from anywhere concerning green tea and colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. “We really need more. If we had 7, 8, or 10 … I’m very positive we will have a much stronger association to say that green tea can have a positive effect.”
 

Comparing thousands of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues also performed another study where they looked at less rigorous evidence – 10 cohort studies and 15 prospective case-control studies. These studies included 198,488 cancer cases and 581,556 controls. This time, they found a stronger link between green tea and a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. 

The “meta-analysis results indicate a lower tendency to develop colorectal cancer with green tea consumption, with reduced risk of colorectal cancer more pronounced in Asia than America or Europe,” the authors note. “Although there is insufficient epidemiological data to conclude at present that green tea can have protective effects in human beings.”

Dr. Chandel presented the findings of both studies in Vancouver at the American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting.
 

Why green tea?

Dr. Chandel said he studied colorectal cancer because it is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, accounting for about 10% of all new cancer cases in 2020, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Cancer Observatory data. It is also a common cause of cancer death globally, second only to lung cancer. 

Green tea contains high level of polyphenols known as catechins. The main catechin in green tea believed to provide cancer protective effects is epigallocatechin-3 gallate (EGCG). EGCG “has been shown in some studies to inhibit or prevent colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. 

EGCG is present in higher amounts in green tea, compared with black or oolong tea, because green tea is made from unfermented, unoxidized tea leaves.
 

Difficult to read the tea leaves

These studies “add to the literature, which remains undefined regarding the role of green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer,” Catherine Eng, MD, a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said when asked to comment.

Although combining three trials did not reveal a significant benefit, looking at a greater number of studies did in some populations, said Dr. Eng, codirector of gastrointestinal oncology and chair of surgical and medical oncology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. 

“Potential benefit for green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer was noted in the Asian cases but was not found to be statistically significant in the European or U.S. studies,” she said. “Currently, the role of dietary consumption of green tea on reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is not well established and requires further investigation.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

TOPLINE:

In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, oral naltrexone and acamprosate are both effective first-line drug therapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD), results of a systematic review and meta-analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated efficacy and comparative efficacy of three therapies for AUD that are approved in the United States (acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram) and six that are commonly used off-label (baclofen, gabapentin, varenicline, topiramate, prazosin, and ondansetron).
• Data came from 118 randomized clinical trials lasting at least 12 weeks with 20,976 participants.
• 74% of these studies included psychosocial co-interventions, and the primary outcome was alcohol consumption.
• Numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Acamprosate (NNT = 11) and naltrexone (50 mg/day; NNT = 18) had the highest strength of evidence and were both associated with statistically significant improvement in drinking outcomes.
• Oral naltrexone but not acamprosate was also associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking (NNT = 11), compared with placebo.
• Injectable naltrexone was not associated with return to any or heavy drinking but was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, –4.99 days).
• The four trials that directly compared acamprosate with oral naltrexone did not consistently establish superiority of either medication for alcohol use outcomes, and among off-label drugs, only topiramate had moderate strength of evidence for benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

“Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone, 50 mg/day, and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Most study participants had moderate to severe AUD, and the applicability of the findings to people with mild AUD is uncertain. The mean age of participants was typically between ages 40 and 49 years, and it’s unclear whether the medications have similar efficacy for older or younger age groups. Information on adverse effects was limited.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, oral naltrexone and acamprosate are both effective first-line drug therapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD), results of a systematic review and meta-analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated efficacy and comparative efficacy of three therapies for AUD that are approved in the United States (acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram) and six that are commonly used off-label (baclofen, gabapentin, varenicline, topiramate, prazosin, and ondansetron).
• Data came from 118 randomized clinical trials lasting at least 12 weeks with 20,976 participants.
• 74% of these studies included psychosocial co-interventions, and the primary outcome was alcohol consumption.
• Numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Acamprosate (NNT = 11) and naltrexone (50 mg/day; NNT = 18) had the highest strength of evidence and were both associated with statistically significant improvement in drinking outcomes.
• Oral naltrexone but not acamprosate was also associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking (NNT = 11), compared with placebo.
• Injectable naltrexone was not associated with return to any or heavy drinking but was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, –4.99 days).
• The four trials that directly compared acamprosate with oral naltrexone did not consistently establish superiority of either medication for alcohol use outcomes, and among off-label drugs, only topiramate had moderate strength of evidence for benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

“Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone, 50 mg/day, and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Most study participants had moderate to severe AUD, and the applicability of the findings to people with mild AUD is uncertain. The mean age of participants was typically between ages 40 and 49 years, and it’s unclear whether the medications have similar efficacy for older or younger age groups. Information on adverse effects was limited.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, oral naltrexone and acamprosate are both effective first-line drug therapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD), results of a systematic review and meta-analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated efficacy and comparative efficacy of three therapies for AUD that are approved in the United States (acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram) and six that are commonly used off-label (baclofen, gabapentin, varenicline, topiramate, prazosin, and ondansetron).
• Data came from 118 randomized clinical trials lasting at least 12 weeks with 20,976 participants.
• 74% of these studies included psychosocial co-interventions, and the primary outcome was alcohol consumption.
• Numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Acamprosate (NNT = 11) and naltrexone (50 mg/day; NNT = 18) had the highest strength of evidence and were both associated with statistically significant improvement in drinking outcomes.
• Oral naltrexone but not acamprosate was also associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking (NNT = 11), compared with placebo.
• Injectable naltrexone was not associated with return to any or heavy drinking but was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, –4.99 days).
• The four trials that directly compared acamprosate with oral naltrexone did not consistently establish superiority of either medication for alcohol use outcomes, and among off-label drugs, only topiramate had moderate strength of evidence for benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

“Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone, 50 mg/day, and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Most study participants had moderate to severe AUD, and the applicability of the findings to people with mild AUD is uncertain. The mean age of participants was typically between ages 40 and 49 years, and it’s unclear whether the medications have similar efficacy for older or younger age groups. Information on adverse effects was limited.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients often come to us with questions about vitamin and mineral supplements. Sometimes they come to us with bags full of the things they are taking. The Internet is full of the wonders these nutritional supplements can do, from turmeric curing cancer to vitamin D curing COVID. It is hard to keep up with medicine itself without learning a whole new field of nutritional supplements.

However, for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer prevention, the answer is pretty easy according to USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Task Force) guidelines. They evaluated 17,459 unique citations as well as 379 full-text articles that included randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The conclusions of their research showed that there was little to no benefit in taking vitamin or mineral supplements to prevent CVD, cancer, or death. In fact, beta-carotene supplementation was associated with increased risk of lung cancer and other adverse outcomes in patients at increased risk of lung cancer.

Although they are often marketed like drugs, nutritional supplements are regulated as foods, with less stringent standards.* Our current medical culture pushes us to practice evidence-based medicine. Without evidence, we simply cannot counsel patients about supplements because there is little evidence to support their use.

Additionally, many patients assume that they are safe. While this may be true for many of them, some of them can be harmful in several ways. They can interact with medications the patient may be taking for medical conditions. Some of them have been shown to cause liver and other organ damage. When they are used to replace traditional medicine, they can also lead to harm by delaying appropriate medical care. For example, a patient who believes a supplement can treat cancer when it does nothing is delaying care that might save their life. By the time they realize it is not working, the cancer may have advanced too far to be treatable.

While there may be a few studies that do show some efficacy for vitamins and minerals in certain diseases, these guidelines are looking only at use in terms of preventing cancer and CVD. As primary care physicians, we all know the screening guidelines for cancer prevention. We are better off recommending screening mammograms and colon cancer screening tests. And we all know the risk factors for CVD and how to mitigate these risks.

What can we do when patients come to us with false claims regarding supplements?

• Hear what they are saying. They don’t know who to trust. We will never become their trusted source of medical information if we don’t listen to their concerns.
• Answer their questions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem to us. Many people who sell supplements sound convincing. That is how they sell their products. Our advice may seem just as ridiculous to them. We need to explain the facts clearly and be sure the patient understands.
• Give the patient resources. Know what websites to direct them to so that they can get accurate information.
• Know what’s out there. I was once surprised when a patient told me she was going to try turmeric as a treatment for uterine cancer. We cannot combat misinformation when we don’t know what’s being said.
• Become a voice for medical information. There is so much misinformation being spread. We need more doctors to speak up about the right medical information.

Currently, patients often look for medical information online. We do them a disservice when we brush aside their questions regarding supplements, no matter how trivial they seem. We need to take a firm stand and tell them the evidence regarding these supplements: They are neither FDA approved nor studied for safety and efficacy. Anyone can sell a supplement and make any claim regarding it that they want. It is much better to eat a healthy, balanced diet to get the vitamins and minerals that you need. Not only do we need to show them the evidence, we need to convince them that it is true.

*Correction, 12/4: An earlier version of this article misstated the regulatory requirements for nutritional supplements.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

Patients often come to us with questions about vitamin and mineral supplements. Sometimes they come to us with bags full of the things they are taking. The Internet is full of the wonders these nutritional supplements can do, from turmeric curing cancer to vitamin D curing COVID. It is hard to keep up with medicine itself without learning a whole new field of nutritional supplements.

However, for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer prevention, the answer is pretty easy according to USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Task Force) guidelines. They evaluated 17,459 unique citations as well as 379 full-text articles that included randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The conclusions of their research showed that there was little to no benefit in taking vitamin or mineral supplements to prevent CVD, cancer, or death. In fact, beta-carotene supplementation was associated with increased risk of lung cancer and other adverse outcomes in patients at increased risk of lung cancer.

Although they are often marketed like drugs, nutritional supplements are regulated as foods, with less stringent standards.* Our current medical culture pushes us to practice evidence-based medicine. Without evidence, we simply cannot counsel patients about supplements because there is little evidence to support their use.

Additionally, many patients assume that they are safe. While this may be true for many of them, some of them can be harmful in several ways. They can interact with medications the patient may be taking for medical conditions. Some of them have been shown to cause liver and other organ damage. When they are used to replace traditional medicine, they can also lead to harm by delaying appropriate medical care. For example, a patient who believes a supplement can treat cancer when it does nothing is delaying care that might save their life. By the time they realize it is not working, the cancer may have advanced too far to be treatable.

While there may be a few studies that do show some efficacy for vitamins and minerals in certain diseases, these guidelines are looking only at use in terms of preventing cancer and CVD. As primary care physicians, we all know the screening guidelines for cancer prevention. We are better off recommending screening mammograms and colon cancer screening tests. And we all know the risk factors for CVD and how to mitigate these risks.

What can we do when patients come to us with false claims regarding supplements?

• Hear what they are saying. They don’t know who to trust. We will never become their trusted source of medical information if we don’t listen to their concerns.
• Answer their questions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem to us. Many people who sell supplements sound convincing. That is how they sell their products. Our advice may seem just as ridiculous to them. We need to explain the facts clearly and be sure the patient understands.
• Give the patient resources. Know what websites to direct them to so that they can get accurate information.
• Know what’s out there. I was once surprised when a patient told me she was going to try turmeric as a treatment for uterine cancer. We cannot combat misinformation when we don’t know what’s being said.
• Become a voice for medical information. There is so much misinformation being spread. We need more doctors to speak up about the right medical information.

Currently, patients often look for medical information online. We do them a disservice when we brush aside their questions regarding supplements, no matter how trivial they seem. We need to take a firm stand and tell them the evidence regarding these supplements: They are neither FDA approved nor studied for safety and efficacy. Anyone can sell a supplement and make any claim regarding it that they want. It is much better to eat a healthy, balanced diet to get the vitamins and minerals that you need. Not only do we need to show them the evidence, we need to convince them that it is true.

*Correction, 12/4: An earlier version of this article misstated the regulatory requirements for nutritional supplements.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

Patients often come to us with questions about vitamin and mineral supplements. Sometimes they come to us with bags full of the things they are taking. The Internet is full of the wonders these nutritional supplements can do, from turmeric curing cancer to vitamin D curing COVID. It is hard to keep up with medicine itself without learning a whole new field of nutritional supplements.

However, for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer prevention, the answer is pretty easy according to USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Task Force) guidelines. They evaluated 17,459 unique citations as well as 379 full-text articles that included randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The conclusions of their research showed that there was little to no benefit in taking vitamin or mineral supplements to prevent CVD, cancer, or death. In fact, beta-carotene supplementation was associated with increased risk of lung cancer and other adverse outcomes in patients at increased risk of lung cancer.

Although they are often marketed like drugs, nutritional supplements are regulated as foods, with less stringent standards.* Our current medical culture pushes us to practice evidence-based medicine. Without evidence, we simply cannot counsel patients about supplements because there is little evidence to support their use.

Additionally, many patients assume that they are safe. While this may be true for many of them, some of them can be harmful in several ways. They can interact with medications the patient may be taking for medical conditions. Some of them have been shown to cause liver and other organ damage. When they are used to replace traditional medicine, they can also lead to harm by delaying appropriate medical care. For example, a patient who believes a supplement can treat cancer when it does nothing is delaying care that might save their life. By the time they realize it is not working, the cancer may have advanced too far to be treatable.

While there may be a few studies that do show some efficacy for vitamins and minerals in certain diseases, these guidelines are looking only at use in terms of preventing cancer and CVD. As primary care physicians, we all know the screening guidelines for cancer prevention. We are better off recommending screening mammograms and colon cancer screening tests. And we all know the risk factors for CVD and how to mitigate these risks.

What can we do when patients come to us with false claims regarding supplements?

• Hear what they are saying. They don’t know who to trust. We will never become their trusted source of medical information if we don’t listen to their concerns.
• Answer their questions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem to us. Many people who sell supplements sound convincing. That is how they sell their products. Our advice may seem just as ridiculous to them. We need to explain the facts clearly and be sure the patient understands.
• Give the patient resources. Know what websites to direct them to so that they can get accurate information.
• Know what’s out there. I was once surprised when a patient told me she was going to try turmeric as a treatment for uterine cancer. We cannot combat misinformation when we don’t know what’s being said.
• Become a voice for medical information. There is so much misinformation being spread. We need more doctors to speak up about the right medical information.

Currently, patients often look for medical information online. We do them a disservice when we brush aside their questions regarding supplements, no matter how trivial they seem. We need to take a firm stand and tell them the evidence regarding these supplements: They are neither FDA approved nor studied for safety and efficacy. Anyone can sell a supplement and make any claim regarding it that they want. It is much better to eat a healthy, balanced diet to get the vitamins and minerals that you need. Not only do we need to show them the evidence, we need to convince them that it is true.

*Correction, 12/4: An earlier version of this article misstated the regulatory requirements for nutritional supplements.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

Pelvic floor disorders are embarrassing, annoying, painful, and extremely disruptive to a woman’s life, often resulting in depression, anxiety, and a poor self-image. According to a 2021 study, approximately 75% of peripartum women and 68% of postmenopausal women feel insufficiently informed about pelvic floor disorders.¹

Consequently, a large majority of women are not seeking care for these disorders. This drives health care costs higher as women wait until their symptoms are unbearable until finally seeking help. Many of these women don’t know they have options.
 

Who is at risk?

To understand the scope of this growing problem, it is vital to see who is most at risk. Parity, age, body mass index, and race are significant factors, although any woman can have a pelvic floor disorder (PFD).

Urinary incontinence (UI), pelvic floor prolapses (POP), and fecal incontinence (FI) are three of the most common pelvic floor disorders. Pregnancy and childbirth, specifically a vaginal birth, greatly contribute to this population’s risk. In pregnancy, the increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate, along with hormone changes impacting urethral pressure and the growing gravid uterus, cause urinary frequency and nocturia. This can result in urinary incontinence during and after pregnancy.

Indeed, 76% of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum report it 12 years later.¹ Third- and fourth-degree lacerations during delivery are uncommon (3.3%), but can cause fecal incontinence, often requiring surgery.¹ Independently, all of these symptoms have been correlated with sexual dysfunction and postpartum depression.

One-third of all women and 50% of women over the age of 55 are currently affected by a PFD. Contributing factors include hormone changes with menopause that affect the pelvic floor muscles and connective tissue, prior childbirth and pregnancy, constipation, heavy lifting, prior pelvic surgery, and obesity. These women are vulnerable to pelvic organ prolapse from the weakened pelvic floor muscles. They will often present with a vague complaint of “something is protruding out of my vagina.” These women also present with urinary incontinence or leakage, proclaiming they have to wear a diaper or a pad. Without proper knowledge, aging women think these issues are normal and nothing can be done.

The woman with a BMI above 30 may have damaged tissues supporting the uterus and bladder, weakening those organs, and causing a prolapse. Incontinence is a result of poor muscle and connective tissue of the vagina that support the urethra. Obese women can suffer from both urinary and bowel incontinence. By the year 2030, it is projected that one in two adults will be obese.² This will greatly impact health care costs.

To date, there is little conclusive evidence on the impact of race on pelvic floor disorders. A study in Scientific Reports did find that Asian women have a significantly lower risk for any PFD.² Some research has found that Black and Hispanic women have less risk for UI but are at higher risk for FI and other PFDs.³ Understandably, women of certain cultures and demographics may be less likely to report incontinence to their clinicians and may be less informed as well.
 

What can we do?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has acknowledged the deficiencies and lack of standard care of pelvic health in pregnancy and postpartum.¹ There are differences in definitions across clinical practice and in the medical literature. Inconsistent patient reporting of PFD symptoms occurs due to nonstandard methods (questionnaire, interview, physical exam). With the often-short time allotted for visits with health care providers, women may neglect to discuss their symptoms, especially if they have other more pressing matters to address.

What would really help improve treatment of PFDs is early education in pregnancy. At the first OB appointment, a pregnant woman should be given information on what are normal and abnormal symptoms, from the beginning through postpartum. At each visit, she should be given ample opportunity to discuss symptoms of pelvic health. Clinicians should continue assessing, questioning, and discussing treatment options as applicable. Women need to know that early recognition and treatment can have a positive affect on their pelvic health for years to come.

ACOG recommends all postpartum patients see an obstetric provider within 3 weeks of delivery.¹ Most are seen at 6 weeks. Pelvic health should be discussed at this final postpartum appointment, including normal and abnormal symptoms within the next few months and beyond.

Regardless of pregnancy status, women need a safe and supportive place to describe their pelvic floor issues. There is a validated questionnaire tool available for postpartum, but one is desperately needed for all women, especially women at risk. A pelvic health assessment must be included in every annual exam.

Women need to know there are multiple treatment modalities including simple exercises, physical therapy, a variety of pessaries, medications, and surgery. Sometimes, all that is needed are a few lifestyle changes: avoiding pushing or straining while urinating or having a bowel movement, maintaining a healthy diet rich in high fiber foods, and drinking plenty of fluids.

The National Public Health Service in the United Kingdom recently announced a government-funded program for pelvic health services to begin in April 2024.⁴ This program will address the pelvic floor needs, assessment, education and treatment for women after childbirth.

There are multiple clinics in the United States focusing on women’s health that feature urogynecologists – specialists in pelvic floor disorders. These specialists do a thorough health and physical assessment, explain types of pelvic floor disorders, and suggest appropriate treatment options. Most importantly, urogynecologists listen and address a woman’s concerns and fears.

There is no reason for women to feel compromised at any age. We, as health care providers, just need to assess, educate, treat, and follow up.

Ms. Barnett is a registered nurse in the department of obstetrics, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, Burlingame, Calif. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Madsen AM et al. Recognition and management of pelvic floor disorders in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021 Sep;48(3):571-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.009.

2. Kenne KA et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in adult women being seen in a primary care setting and associated risk factors. Sci Rep. 2022 June; (12):9878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13501-w.

3. Nygaard I et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.

4. United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care. “National pelvic health service to support women.” 2023 Oct 19.

Pelvic floor disorders are embarrassing, annoying, painful, and extremely disruptive to a woman’s life, often resulting in depression, anxiety, and a poor self-image. According to a 2021 study, approximately 75% of peripartum women and 68% of postmenopausal women feel insufficiently informed about pelvic floor disorders.¹

Consequently, a large majority of women are not seeking care for these disorders. This drives health care costs higher as women wait until their symptoms are unbearable until finally seeking help. Many of these women don’t know they have options.
 

Who is at risk?

To understand the scope of this growing problem, it is vital to see who is most at risk. Parity, age, body mass index, and race are significant factors, although any woman can have a pelvic floor disorder (PFD).

Urinary incontinence (UI), pelvic floor prolapses (POP), and fecal incontinence (FI) are three of the most common pelvic floor disorders. Pregnancy and childbirth, specifically a vaginal birth, greatly contribute to this population’s risk. In pregnancy, the increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate, along with hormone changes impacting urethral pressure and the growing gravid uterus, cause urinary frequency and nocturia. This can result in urinary incontinence during and after pregnancy.

Indeed, 76% of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum report it 12 years later.¹ Third- and fourth-degree lacerations during delivery are uncommon (3.3%), but can cause fecal incontinence, often requiring surgery.¹ Independently, all of these symptoms have been correlated with sexual dysfunction and postpartum depression.

One-third of all women and 50% of women over the age of 55 are currently affected by a PFD. Contributing factors include hormone changes with menopause that affect the pelvic floor muscles and connective tissue, prior childbirth and pregnancy, constipation, heavy lifting, prior pelvic surgery, and obesity. These women are vulnerable to pelvic organ prolapse from the weakened pelvic floor muscles. They will often present with a vague complaint of “something is protruding out of my vagina.” These women also present with urinary incontinence or leakage, proclaiming they have to wear a diaper or a pad. Without proper knowledge, aging women think these issues are normal and nothing can be done.

The woman with a BMI above 30 may have damaged tissues supporting the uterus and bladder, weakening those organs, and causing a prolapse. Incontinence is a result of poor muscle and connective tissue of the vagina that support the urethra. Obese women can suffer from both urinary and bowel incontinence. By the year 2030, it is projected that one in two adults will be obese.² This will greatly impact health care costs.

To date, there is little conclusive evidence on the impact of race on pelvic floor disorders. A study in Scientific Reports did find that Asian women have a significantly lower risk for any PFD.² Some research has found that Black and Hispanic women have less risk for UI but are at higher risk for FI and other PFDs.³ Understandably, women of certain cultures and demographics may be less likely to report incontinence to their clinicians and may be less informed as well.
 

What can we do?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has acknowledged the deficiencies and lack of standard care of pelvic health in pregnancy and postpartum.¹ There are differences in definitions across clinical practice and in the medical literature. Inconsistent patient reporting of PFD symptoms occurs due to nonstandard methods (questionnaire, interview, physical exam). With the often-short time allotted for visits with health care providers, women may neglect to discuss their symptoms, especially if they have other more pressing matters to address.

What would really help improve treatment of PFDs is early education in pregnancy. At the first OB appointment, a pregnant woman should be given information on what are normal and abnormal symptoms, from the beginning through postpartum. At each visit, she should be given ample opportunity to discuss symptoms of pelvic health. Clinicians should continue assessing, questioning, and discussing treatment options as applicable. Women need to know that early recognition and treatment can have a positive affect on their pelvic health for years to come.

ACOG recommends all postpartum patients see an obstetric provider within 3 weeks of delivery.¹ Most are seen at 6 weeks. Pelvic health should be discussed at this final postpartum appointment, including normal and abnormal symptoms within the next few months and beyond.

Regardless of pregnancy status, women need a safe and supportive place to describe their pelvic floor issues. There is a validated questionnaire tool available for postpartum, but one is desperately needed for all women, especially women at risk. A pelvic health assessment must be included in every annual exam.

Women need to know there are multiple treatment modalities including simple exercises, physical therapy, a variety of pessaries, medications, and surgery. Sometimes, all that is needed are a few lifestyle changes: avoiding pushing or straining while urinating or having a bowel movement, maintaining a healthy diet rich in high fiber foods, and drinking plenty of fluids.

The National Public Health Service in the United Kingdom recently announced a government-funded program for pelvic health services to begin in April 2024.⁴ This program will address the pelvic floor needs, assessment, education and treatment for women after childbirth.

There are multiple clinics in the United States focusing on women’s health that feature urogynecologists – specialists in pelvic floor disorders. These specialists do a thorough health and physical assessment, explain types of pelvic floor disorders, and suggest appropriate treatment options. Most importantly, urogynecologists listen and address a woman’s concerns and fears.

There is no reason for women to feel compromised at any age. We, as health care providers, just need to assess, educate, treat, and follow up.

Ms. Barnett is a registered nurse in the department of obstetrics, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, Burlingame, Calif. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Madsen AM et al. Recognition and management of pelvic floor disorders in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021 Sep;48(3):571-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.009.

2. Kenne KA et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in adult women being seen in a primary care setting and associated risk factors. Sci Rep. 2022 June; (12):9878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13501-w.

3. Nygaard I et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.

4. United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care. “National pelvic health service to support women.” 2023 Oct 19.

Pelvic floor disorders are embarrassing, annoying, painful, and extremely disruptive to a woman’s life, often resulting in depression, anxiety, and a poor self-image. According to a 2021 study, approximately 75% of peripartum women and 68% of postmenopausal women feel insufficiently informed about pelvic floor disorders.¹

Consequently, a large majority of women are not seeking care for these disorders. This drives health care costs higher as women wait until their symptoms are unbearable until finally seeking help. Many of these women don’t know they have options.
 

Who is at risk?

To understand the scope of this growing problem, it is vital to see who is most at risk. Parity, age, body mass index, and race are significant factors, although any woman can have a pelvic floor disorder (PFD).

Urinary incontinence (UI), pelvic floor prolapses (POP), and fecal incontinence (FI) are three of the most common pelvic floor disorders. Pregnancy and childbirth, specifically a vaginal birth, greatly contribute to this population’s risk. In pregnancy, the increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate, along with hormone changes impacting urethral pressure and the growing gravid uterus, cause urinary frequency and nocturia. This can result in urinary incontinence during and after pregnancy.

Indeed, 76% of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum report it 12 years later.¹ Third- and fourth-degree lacerations during delivery are uncommon (3.3%), but can cause fecal incontinence, often requiring surgery.¹ Independently, all of these symptoms have been correlated with sexual dysfunction and postpartum depression.

One-third of all women and 50% of women over the age of 55 are currently affected by a PFD. Contributing factors include hormone changes with menopause that affect the pelvic floor muscles and connective tissue, prior childbirth and pregnancy, constipation, heavy lifting, prior pelvic surgery, and obesity. These women are vulnerable to pelvic organ prolapse from the weakened pelvic floor muscles. They will often present with a vague complaint of “something is protruding out of my vagina.” These women also present with urinary incontinence or leakage, proclaiming they have to wear a diaper or a pad. Without proper knowledge, aging women think these issues are normal and nothing can be done.

The woman with a BMI above 30 may have damaged tissues supporting the uterus and bladder, weakening those organs, and causing a prolapse. Incontinence is a result of poor muscle and connective tissue of the vagina that support the urethra. Obese women can suffer from both urinary and bowel incontinence. By the year 2030, it is projected that one in two adults will be obese.² This will greatly impact health care costs.

To date, there is little conclusive evidence on the impact of race on pelvic floor disorders. A study in Scientific Reports did find that Asian women have a significantly lower risk for any PFD.² Some research has found that Black and Hispanic women have less risk for UI but are at higher risk for FI and other PFDs.³ Understandably, women of certain cultures and demographics may be less likely to report incontinence to their clinicians and may be less informed as well.
 

What can we do?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has acknowledged the deficiencies and lack of standard care of pelvic health in pregnancy and postpartum.¹ There are differences in definitions across clinical practice and in the medical literature. Inconsistent patient reporting of PFD symptoms occurs due to nonstandard methods (questionnaire, interview, physical exam). With the often-short time allotted for visits with health care providers, women may neglect to discuss their symptoms, especially if they have other more pressing matters to address.

What would really help improve treatment of PFDs is early education in pregnancy. At the first OB appointment, a pregnant woman should be given information on what are normal and abnormal symptoms, from the beginning through postpartum. At each visit, she should be given ample opportunity to discuss symptoms of pelvic health. Clinicians should continue assessing, questioning, and discussing treatment options as applicable. Women need to know that early recognition and treatment can have a positive affect on their pelvic health for years to come.

ACOG recommends all postpartum patients see an obstetric provider within 3 weeks of delivery.¹ Most are seen at 6 weeks. Pelvic health should be discussed at this final postpartum appointment, including normal and abnormal symptoms within the next few months and beyond.

Regardless of pregnancy status, women need a safe and supportive place to describe their pelvic floor issues. There is a validated questionnaire tool available for postpartum, but one is desperately needed for all women, especially women at risk. A pelvic health assessment must be included in every annual exam.

Women need to know there are multiple treatment modalities including simple exercises, physical therapy, a variety of pessaries, medications, and surgery. Sometimes, all that is needed are a few lifestyle changes: avoiding pushing or straining while urinating or having a bowel movement, maintaining a healthy diet rich in high fiber foods, and drinking plenty of fluids.

The National Public Health Service in the United Kingdom recently announced a government-funded program for pelvic health services to begin in April 2024.⁴ This program will address the pelvic floor needs, assessment, education and treatment for women after childbirth.

There are multiple clinics in the United States focusing on women’s health that feature urogynecologists – specialists in pelvic floor disorders. These specialists do a thorough health and physical assessment, explain types of pelvic floor disorders, and suggest appropriate treatment options. Most importantly, urogynecologists listen and address a woman’s concerns and fears.

There is no reason for women to feel compromised at any age. We, as health care providers, just need to assess, educate, treat, and follow up.

Ms. Barnett is a registered nurse in the department of obstetrics, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, Burlingame, Calif. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Madsen AM et al. Recognition and management of pelvic floor disorders in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021 Sep;48(3):571-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.009.

2. Kenne KA et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in adult women being seen in a primary care setting and associated risk factors. Sci Rep. 2022 June; (12):9878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13501-w.

3. Nygaard I et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.

4. United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care. “National pelvic health service to support women.” 2023 Oct 19.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with actinic keratoses (AKs) have a higher risk for skin cancers, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and melanoma.

METHODOLOGY:

• AKs have been associated with a small risk for cutaneous SCC, but associations with risk for other skin cancers have not been well studied.
• AKs may be a marker of overall skin cancer risk, but guidelines for AK management lack recommendations for follow-up cancer surveillance.
• The researchers reviewed data from a random sample of 5 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries treated for AKs from 2009 through 2018 in the United States. Patients with seborrheic keratoses (SKs) were included as comparators, and patients with a history of skin cancer were excluded.
• The primary outcome was the first surgically treated skin cancer, including SCC, BCC, and melanoma.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 555,945 adults with AKs and 481,024 with SKs were included. The mean age was approximately 74.0 years. More than half were female. Most were non-Hispanic White.
• Among patients with AKs, the absolute risk for any skin cancer after the first AK was 6.3%, 18.4%, and 28.5% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively.
• Patients with AKs had a significantly increased relative risk for any skin cancer compared with those with SKs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.17) and separately for keratinocyte carcinoma (aHR, 2.20), SCC (aHR, 2.63), BCC (aHR, 1.85), and melanoma (aHR, 1.67).
• Although AKs are not considered a biological precursor of melanoma or BCC, the results suggest that AKs may be clinical indicators of increased UV exposure that subsequently increases the risk for skin cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

“The present results highlight the importance of developing evidence-based guidelines for follow-up skin cancer surveillance in patients with AKs, optimally including measures of AK burden,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Cassandra Mohr, BS, with corresponding author Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology .

LIMITATIONS:

The study population of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older may not be a nationally representative sample, and surveillance bias may contribute to the increased risk for skin cancer in patients with AKs. The use of both ICD and CPT codes may underestimate the number of skin cancers because of cases that were treated nonsurgically.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and The University of Texas Rising STARS program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with actinic keratoses (AKs) have a higher risk for skin cancers, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and melanoma.

METHODOLOGY:

• AKs have been associated with a small risk for cutaneous SCC, but associations with risk for other skin cancers have not been well studied.
• AKs may be a marker of overall skin cancer risk, but guidelines for AK management lack recommendations for follow-up cancer surveillance.
• The researchers reviewed data from a random sample of 5 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries treated for AKs from 2009 through 2018 in the United States. Patients with seborrheic keratoses (SKs) were included as comparators, and patients with a history of skin cancer were excluded.
• The primary outcome was the first surgically treated skin cancer, including SCC, BCC, and melanoma.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 555,945 adults with AKs and 481,024 with SKs were included. The mean age was approximately 74.0 years. More than half were female. Most were non-Hispanic White.
• Among patients with AKs, the absolute risk for any skin cancer after the first AK was 6.3%, 18.4%, and 28.5% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively.
• Patients with AKs had a significantly increased relative risk for any skin cancer compared with those with SKs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.17) and separately for keratinocyte carcinoma (aHR, 2.20), SCC (aHR, 2.63), BCC (aHR, 1.85), and melanoma (aHR, 1.67).
• Although AKs are not considered a biological precursor of melanoma or BCC, the results suggest that AKs may be clinical indicators of increased UV exposure that subsequently increases the risk for skin cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

“The present results highlight the importance of developing evidence-based guidelines for follow-up skin cancer surveillance in patients with AKs, optimally including measures of AK burden,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Cassandra Mohr, BS, with corresponding author Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology .

LIMITATIONS:

The study population of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older may not be a nationally representative sample, and surveillance bias may contribute to the increased risk for skin cancer in patients with AKs. The use of both ICD and CPT codes may underestimate the number of skin cancers because of cases that were treated nonsurgically.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and The University of Texas Rising STARS program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with actinic keratoses (AKs) have a higher risk for skin cancers, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and melanoma.

METHODOLOGY:

• AKs have been associated with a small risk for cutaneous SCC, but associations with risk for other skin cancers have not been well studied.
• AKs may be a marker of overall skin cancer risk, but guidelines for AK management lack recommendations for follow-up cancer surveillance.
• The researchers reviewed data from a random sample of 5 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries treated for AKs from 2009 through 2018 in the United States. Patients with seborrheic keratoses (SKs) were included as comparators, and patients with a history of skin cancer were excluded.
• The primary outcome was the first surgically treated skin cancer, including SCC, BCC, and melanoma.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 555,945 adults with AKs and 481,024 with SKs were included. The mean age was approximately 74.0 years. More than half were female. Most were non-Hispanic White.
• Among patients with AKs, the absolute risk for any skin cancer after the first AK was 6.3%, 18.4%, and 28.5% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively.
• Patients with AKs had a significantly increased relative risk for any skin cancer compared with those with SKs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.17) and separately for keratinocyte carcinoma (aHR, 2.20), SCC (aHR, 2.63), BCC (aHR, 1.85), and melanoma (aHR, 1.67).
• Although AKs are not considered a biological precursor of melanoma or BCC, the results suggest that AKs may be clinical indicators of increased UV exposure that subsequently increases the risk for skin cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

“The present results highlight the importance of developing evidence-based guidelines for follow-up skin cancer surveillance in patients with AKs, optimally including measures of AK burden,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Cassandra Mohr, BS, with corresponding author Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology .

LIMITATIONS:

The study population of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older may not be a nationally representative sample, and surveillance bias may contribute to the increased risk for skin cancer in patients with AKs. The use of both ICD and CPT codes may underestimate the number of skin cancers because of cases that were treated nonsurgically.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and The University of Texas Rising STARS program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
• The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
• Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
• In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
• Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm² for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm² in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm² in ulcerated controls.
• On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
• On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
• The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
• Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
• In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
• Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm² for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm² in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm² in ulcerated controls.
• On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
• On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
• The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
• Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
• In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
• Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm² for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm² in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm² in ulcerated controls.
• On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
• On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Developments in early breast cancer reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress are discussed by Dr Lisa Carey of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

Dr Carey begins with 5-year results from the KEYNOTE-522 study in patients with early triple-negative breast cancer in which the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab was incorporated into combination therapy both pre- and postoperatively. The new findings were consistent with earlier results, showing that pembrolizumab improved pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival. 

Turning to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) disease, Dr Carey discusses the PHERGain trial's use of a genomic assay to define risk and predict pCR. She suggests that such assays could lead to tailored therapy for HER2+ patients. 

On estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2- disease, Dr Carey reports first on KEYNOTE-756, which examined the addition of pembrolizumab to combination therapy for high-risk patients in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Pembrolizumab improved pCR compared with placebo. 

Dr Carey closes by discussing another study in high-risk ER+/HER2- disease. Similar in design to KEYNOTE-756, CheckMate 7FL found that nivolumab added to combination therapy again augmented pCR results. 

--

Lisa A. Carey, MD, Distinguished Professor or Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Professor, Division of Medical Oncology, Bassnight North Carolina Cancer Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina  

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Developments in early breast cancer reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress are discussed by Dr Lisa Carey of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

Dr Carey begins with 5-year results from the KEYNOTE-522 study in patients with early triple-negative breast cancer in which the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab was incorporated into combination therapy both pre- and postoperatively. The new findings were consistent with earlier results, showing that pembrolizumab improved pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival. 

Turning to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) disease, Dr Carey discusses the PHERGain trial's use of a genomic assay to define risk and predict pCR. She suggests that such assays could lead to tailored therapy for HER2+ patients. 

On estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2- disease, Dr Carey reports first on KEYNOTE-756, which examined the addition of pembrolizumab to combination therapy for high-risk patients in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Pembrolizumab improved pCR compared with placebo. 

Dr Carey closes by discussing another study in high-risk ER+/HER2- disease. Similar in design to KEYNOTE-756, CheckMate 7FL found that nivolumab added to combination therapy again augmented pCR results. 

--

Lisa A. Carey, MD, Distinguished Professor or Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Professor, Division of Medical Oncology, Bassnight North Carolina Cancer Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina  

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Developments in early breast cancer reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress are discussed by Dr Lisa Carey of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

Dr Carey begins with 5-year results from the KEYNOTE-522 study in patients with early triple-negative breast cancer in which the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab was incorporated into combination therapy both pre- and postoperatively. The new findings were consistent with earlier results, showing that pembrolizumab improved pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival. 

Turning to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) disease, Dr Carey discusses the PHERGain trial's use of a genomic assay to define risk and predict pCR. She suggests that such assays could lead to tailored therapy for HER2+ patients. 

On estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2- disease, Dr Carey reports first on KEYNOTE-756, which examined the addition of pembrolizumab to combination therapy for high-risk patients in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Pembrolizumab improved pCR compared with placebo. 

Dr Carey closes by discussing another study in high-risk ER+/HER2- disease. Similar in design to KEYNOTE-756, CheckMate 7FL found that nivolumab added to combination therapy again augmented pCR results. 

--

Lisa A. Carey, MD, Distinguished Professor or Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Professor, Division of Medical Oncology, Bassnight North Carolina Cancer Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina  

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biologic Adzynma (ADAMTS13, recombinant-krhn, Takeda Pharmaceuticals) to treat adults and children who have a rare and life-threatening blood clotting disorder called congenital thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Adzynma is the first recombinant protein product for preventive or on-demand enzyme replacement therapy for people with the blood clotting condition.

Congenital TTP affects fewer than 1,000 people in the United States and is caused by a mutation in the ADAMTS13 gene, which makes an enzyme that regulates blood clotting. Patients with the congenital TTP typically receive prophylactic plasma-based therapy to replenish the ADAMTS13 enzyme and reduce the risk for clotting and bleeding. The condition, however, can be fatal if left untreated.

The new agent is a purified recombinant form of the ADAMTS13 enzyme that works by replacing low levels of the deficient enzyme in patients with congenital TTP. Adzynma is given prophylactically to reduce the risk for disease symptoms and on demand when a patient is experiencing an acute event, according to the FDA approval announcement.

The approval was based on a global randomized phase 3 study comparing the product with plasma-based therapies in 46 patients with congenital TTP. Patients in the trial were randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with either intravenous Adzynma — given once every other week as prophylactic enzyme replacement therapy or once daily as on-demand enzyme replacement therapy — or plasma-based therapies. The patients then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 months.

Interim findings from the study showed that Adzynma reduced the incidence of thrombocytopenia — the most common symptom of congenital TTP — by 60% compared with plasma-based therapy (rate ratio, 0.40). No patients experienced an acute TTP event during Adzynma prophylaxis, Takeda said.

Significantly more patients receiving plasma-based therapies experienced treatment-emergent adverse events compared with those receiving the biologic.

The most common side effects associated with the biologic were headache (31.3%), diarrhea (16.7%), migraine (14.6%), abdominal pain (12.5%), nausea (12.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%), dizziness (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No treatment-related adverse events, including allergic reactions, were observed during administration.

“The FDA remains deeply committed in our efforts to help facilitate the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for patients with rare diseases,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, stated. The “approval reflects important progress in the development of much-needed treatment options for patients affected by this life-threatening disorder.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biologic Adzynma (ADAMTS13, recombinant-krhn, Takeda Pharmaceuticals) to treat adults and children who have a rare and life-threatening blood clotting disorder called congenital thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Adzynma is the first recombinant protein product for preventive or on-demand enzyme replacement therapy for people with the blood clotting condition.

Congenital TTP affects fewer than 1,000 people in the United States and is caused by a mutation in the ADAMTS13 gene, which makes an enzyme that regulates blood clotting. Patients with the congenital TTP typically receive prophylactic plasma-based therapy to replenish the ADAMTS13 enzyme and reduce the risk for clotting and bleeding. The condition, however, can be fatal if left untreated.

The new agent is a purified recombinant form of the ADAMTS13 enzyme that works by replacing low levels of the deficient enzyme in patients with congenital TTP. Adzynma is given prophylactically to reduce the risk for disease symptoms and on demand when a patient is experiencing an acute event, according to the FDA approval announcement.

The approval was based on a global randomized phase 3 study comparing the product with plasma-based therapies in 46 patients with congenital TTP. Patients in the trial were randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with either intravenous Adzynma — given once every other week as prophylactic enzyme replacement therapy or once daily as on-demand enzyme replacement therapy — or plasma-based therapies. The patients then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 months.

Interim findings from the study showed that Adzynma reduced the incidence of thrombocytopenia — the most common symptom of congenital TTP — by 60% compared with plasma-based therapy (rate ratio, 0.40). No patients experienced an acute TTP event during Adzynma prophylaxis, Takeda said.

Significantly more patients receiving plasma-based therapies experienced treatment-emergent adverse events compared with those receiving the biologic.

The most common side effects associated with the biologic were headache (31.3%), diarrhea (16.7%), migraine (14.6%), abdominal pain (12.5%), nausea (12.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%), dizziness (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No treatment-related adverse events, including allergic reactions, were observed during administration.

“The FDA remains deeply committed in our efforts to help facilitate the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for patients with rare diseases,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, stated. The “approval reflects important progress in the development of much-needed treatment options for patients affected by this life-threatening disorder.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biologic Adzynma (ADAMTS13, recombinant-krhn, Takeda Pharmaceuticals) to treat adults and children who have a rare and life-threatening blood clotting disorder called congenital thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Adzynma is the first recombinant protein product for preventive or on-demand enzyme replacement therapy for people with the blood clotting condition.

Congenital TTP affects fewer than 1,000 people in the United States and is caused by a mutation in the ADAMTS13 gene, which makes an enzyme that regulates blood clotting. Patients with the congenital TTP typically receive prophylactic plasma-based therapy to replenish the ADAMTS13 enzyme and reduce the risk for clotting and bleeding. The condition, however, can be fatal if left untreated.

The new agent is a purified recombinant form of the ADAMTS13 enzyme that works by replacing low levels of the deficient enzyme in patients with congenital TTP. Adzynma is given prophylactically to reduce the risk for disease symptoms and on demand when a patient is experiencing an acute event, according to the FDA approval announcement.

The approval was based on a global randomized phase 3 study comparing the product with plasma-based therapies in 46 patients with congenital TTP. Patients in the trial were randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with either intravenous Adzynma — given once every other week as prophylactic enzyme replacement therapy or once daily as on-demand enzyme replacement therapy — or plasma-based therapies. The patients then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 months.

Interim findings from the study showed that Adzynma reduced the incidence of thrombocytopenia — the most common symptom of congenital TTP — by 60% compared with plasma-based therapy (rate ratio, 0.40). No patients experienced an acute TTP event during Adzynma prophylaxis, Takeda said.

Significantly more patients receiving plasma-based therapies experienced treatment-emergent adverse events compared with those receiving the biologic.

The most common side effects associated with the biologic were headache (31.3%), diarrhea (16.7%), migraine (14.6%), abdominal pain (12.5%), nausea (12.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%), dizziness (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No treatment-related adverse events, including allergic reactions, were observed during administration.

“The FDA remains deeply committed in our efforts to help facilitate the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for patients with rare diseases,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, stated. The “approval reflects important progress in the development of much-needed treatment options for patients affected by this life-threatening disorder.”

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

Developments in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress and are discussed by Dr Ann Partridge of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 

To begin, Dr Partridge highlights a late-breaking abstract showing that use of the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan in hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) MBC results in improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy. 

Next, Dr Partridge turns to two studies on another ADC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), in MBC. The first study showed positive PFS and overall survival results among patients with either estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2-low or triple-negative/HER2-low breast cancer. The second T-DXd study examined the ADC's impact on brain metastases in patients with HER2+ disease and reported favorable results. 

She then highlights promising phase 2 results for a novel agent called OP-1250, or palazestrant, studied in patients with ER+/HER2- MBC. 

Finally, Dr Partridge points to a study of a supportive-care program called MOATT, designed for patients on oral MBC therapy, which aims to improve home management. Compared with local standard of care, patients in the program show higher rates of persistence in therapy management and, importantly, concomitant improvements in PFS. 

--

Ann H. Partridge, MD, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Vice Chair of Clinical Oncology, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Developments in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress and are discussed by Dr Ann Partridge of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 

To begin, Dr Partridge highlights a late-breaking abstract showing that use of the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan in hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) MBC results in improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy. 

Next, Dr Partridge turns to two studies on another ADC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), in MBC. The first study showed positive PFS and overall survival results among patients with either estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2-low or triple-negative/HER2-low breast cancer. The second T-DXd study examined the ADC's impact on brain metastases in patients with HER2+ disease and reported favorable results. 

She then highlights promising phase 2 results for a novel agent called OP-1250, or palazestrant, studied in patients with ER+/HER2- MBC. 

Finally, Dr Partridge points to a study of a supportive-care program called MOATT, designed for patients on oral MBC therapy, which aims to improve home management. Compared with local standard of care, patients in the program show higher rates of persistence in therapy management and, importantly, concomitant improvements in PFS. 

--

Ann H. Partridge, MD, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Vice Chair of Clinical Oncology, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Developments in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress and are discussed by Dr Ann Partridge of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 

To begin, Dr Partridge highlights a late-breaking abstract showing that use of the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan in hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) MBC results in improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy. 

Next, Dr Partridge turns to two studies on another ADC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), in MBC. The first study showed positive PFS and overall survival results among patients with either estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2-low or triple-negative/HER2-low breast cancer. The second T-DXd study examined the ADC's impact on brain metastases in patients with HER2+ disease and reported favorable results. 

She then highlights promising phase 2 results for a novel agent called OP-1250, or palazestrant, studied in patients with ER+/HER2- MBC. 

Finally, Dr Partridge points to a study of a supportive-care program called MOATT, designed for patients on oral MBC therapy, which aims to improve home management. Compared with local standard of care, patients in the program show higher rates of persistence in therapy management and, importantly, concomitant improvements in PFS. 

--

Ann H. Partridge, MD, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Vice Chair of Clinical Oncology, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.