Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

The largest study of its kind has found no positive association between personal use of permanent hair dye and the risk for most cancers and cancer mortality.

The findings come from the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of more than 117,000 women who have been followed for 36 years and who did not have cancer at baseline.

The findings were published online on September 2 in the BMJ.

The results “offer some reassurance against concerns that personal use of permanent hair dyes might be associated with increased cancer risk or mortality,” write the investigators, with first author Yin Zhang, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The findings, which are limited to White women in the United States, indicate correlation, not causation, the authors emphasize.

Nevertheless, the researchers found an increased risk for some cancers among hair dye users, especially with greater cumulative dose (200 or more uses during the study period). The risk was increased for basal cell carcinoma, breast cancer (specifically, estrogen receptor negative [ER–], progesterone receptor negative [PR–], and hormone receptor negative [ER–, PR–]), and ovarian cancer.

A British expert not involved in the study dismissed these findings. “The reported associations are very weak, and, given the number of associations reported in this manuscript, they are very likely to be chance findings,” commented Paul Pharoah, PhD, professor of cancer epidemiology at the University of Cambridge (England).

“For the cancers where an increase in risk is reported, the results are not compelling. Even if they were real findings, the associations may not be cause-and-effect, and, even if they were causal associations, the magnitude of the effects are so small that any risk would be trivial.

“In short, none of the findings reported in this manuscript suggest that women who use hair dye are putting themselves at increased risk of cancer,” he stated.

A U.S. researcher who has previously coauthored a study suggesting an association between hair dye and breast cancer agreed that the increases in risk reported in this current study are “small.” But they are “of interest,” especially for breast and ovarian cancer, said Alexandra White, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

Hair dyes include compounds that “are not just potential carcinogens but also act as endocrine disruptors,” she said in an interview.

“In both breast and ovarian cancer, we know that hormones play an important part in the etiology ... so it’s biologically plausible that you would see [these associations in the current study],” added Dr. White, who was approached for comment.

However, she added that, even with the “modest” 20%-28% increase in the relative risk for certain breast cancers linked to a heavy cumulative dose of dyes in the current study, “there doesn’t seem to be any strong association with any cancer type.”

But she also pointed out that the most outstanding risk association was among ER–/PR– breast cancers, which are the “most aggressive and difficult to treat,” and thus the new findings are “important.”

Dr. White is the lead author of a 2019 study that received a lot of media attention because it rang an alarm bell about hair dyes and breast cancer risk.

That study concluded that ever using permanent hair dye or hair straighteners was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer than never using them and that this higher risk was especially associated with Black women. However, the study participants were from the prospective Sister Study. The participants in that study had no history of breast cancer, but they each had at least one sister who did. This family history of breast cancer may represent selection bias.
 

With changes in the 1980s, even safer now?

The study of hair dyes and cancer has “major public health implications” because the use of hair dye is widespread, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write in their article. They estimate that 50% to 80% of women and 10% of men aged 40 years and older in the United States and Europe use hair dye.

Permanent hair dyes “pose the greatest potential concern,” they stated, adding that these account for approximately 80% of hair dyes used in the United States and Europe and an even higher percentage in Asia.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies occupational exposure to hair dyes as probably carcinogenic, but the carcinogenicity resulting from personal use of hair dyes is not classifiable – thus, there is no warning about at-home usage.

Notably, there was “a huge and very important” change in hair dye ingredients in the 1980s after the Food and Drug Administration warned about some chemicals in permanent hair dyes and the cosmetic industry altered their formulas, lead author Dr. Zhang said.

However, the researchers could not analyze use before and after the changes because not enough women reported first use of permanent hair dye after 1980 (only 1890 of 117,200 participants).

“We could expect that the current ingredients should make it safer,” Dr. Zhang said.
 

Study details

The researchers report that ever-users of permanent hair dyes had no significant increases in risk for solid cancers (n = 20,805; hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.01) or hematopoietic cancers overall (n = 1,807; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.10) compared with nonusers.

Additionally, ever-users did not have an increased risk for most specific cancers or cancer-related death (n = 4,860; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.02).

As noted above, there were some exceptions.

Basal cell carcinoma risk was slightly increased for ever-users (n = 22,560; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). Cumulative dose (a calculation of duration and frequency) was positively associated with risk for ER– breast cancer, PR– breast cancer, ER–/PR– breast cancer, and ovarian cancer, with risk rising in accordance with the total amount of dye.

Notably, at a cumulative dose of ≥200 uses, there was a 20% increase in the relative risk for ER- breast cancer (n = 1521; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P value for trend, .03). At the same cumulative dose, there was a 28% increase in the relative risk for ER-/PR- breast cancer (n = 1287; HR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P value for trend, .006).

In addition, an increased risk for Hodgkin lymphoma was observed, but only for women with naturally dark hair (the calculation was based on 70 women, 24 of whom had dark hair).

In a press statement, senior author Eva Schernhammer, PhD, of Harvard and the Medical University of Vienna, said the results “justify further prospective validation.”

She also explained that there are many variables to consider in this research, including different populations and countries, different susceptibility genotypes, different exposure settings (personal use vs. occupational exposure), and different colors of the permanent hair dyes used (dark dyes vs. light dyes).

Geographic location is a particularly important variable, suggested the study authors.

They pointed out that Europe, but not the United States, banned some individual hair dye ingredients that were considered carcinogenic during both the 1980s and 2000s. One country has even tighter oversight: “The most restrictive regulation of hair dyes exists in Japan, where cosmetic products are considered equivalent to drugs.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The study authors and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest study of its kind has found no positive association between personal use of permanent hair dye and the risk for most cancers and cancer mortality.

The findings come from the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of more than 117,000 women who have been followed for 36 years and who did not have cancer at baseline.

The findings were published online on September 2 in the BMJ.

The results “offer some reassurance against concerns that personal use of permanent hair dyes might be associated with increased cancer risk or mortality,” write the investigators, with first author Yin Zhang, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The findings, which are limited to White women in the United States, indicate correlation, not causation, the authors emphasize.

Nevertheless, the researchers found an increased risk for some cancers among hair dye users, especially with greater cumulative dose (200 or more uses during the study period). The risk was increased for basal cell carcinoma, breast cancer (specifically, estrogen receptor negative [ER–], progesterone receptor negative [PR–], and hormone receptor negative [ER–, PR–]), and ovarian cancer.

A British expert not involved in the study dismissed these findings. “The reported associations are very weak, and, given the number of associations reported in this manuscript, they are very likely to be chance findings,” commented Paul Pharoah, PhD, professor of cancer epidemiology at the University of Cambridge (England).

“For the cancers where an increase in risk is reported, the results are not compelling. Even if they were real findings, the associations may not be cause-and-effect, and, even if they were causal associations, the magnitude of the effects are so small that any risk would be trivial.

“In short, none of the findings reported in this manuscript suggest that women who use hair dye are putting themselves at increased risk of cancer,” he stated.

A U.S. researcher who has previously coauthored a study suggesting an association between hair dye and breast cancer agreed that the increases in risk reported in this current study are “small.” But they are “of interest,” especially for breast and ovarian cancer, said Alexandra White, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

Hair dyes include compounds that “are not just potential carcinogens but also act as endocrine disruptors,” she said in an interview.

“In both breast and ovarian cancer, we know that hormones play an important part in the etiology ... so it’s biologically plausible that you would see [these associations in the current study],” added Dr. White, who was approached for comment.

However, she added that, even with the “modest” 20%-28% increase in the relative risk for certain breast cancers linked to a heavy cumulative dose of dyes in the current study, “there doesn’t seem to be any strong association with any cancer type.”

But she also pointed out that the most outstanding risk association was among ER–/PR– breast cancers, which are the “most aggressive and difficult to treat,” and thus the new findings are “important.”

Dr. White is the lead author of a 2019 study that received a lot of media attention because it rang an alarm bell about hair dyes and breast cancer risk.

That study concluded that ever using permanent hair dye or hair straighteners was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer than never using them and that this higher risk was especially associated with Black women. However, the study participants were from the prospective Sister Study. The participants in that study had no history of breast cancer, but they each had at least one sister who did. This family history of breast cancer may represent selection bias.
 

With changes in the 1980s, even safer now?

The study of hair dyes and cancer has “major public health implications” because the use of hair dye is widespread, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write in their article. They estimate that 50% to 80% of women and 10% of men aged 40 years and older in the United States and Europe use hair dye.

Permanent hair dyes “pose the greatest potential concern,” they stated, adding that these account for approximately 80% of hair dyes used in the United States and Europe and an even higher percentage in Asia.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies occupational exposure to hair dyes as probably carcinogenic, but the carcinogenicity resulting from personal use of hair dyes is not classifiable – thus, there is no warning about at-home usage.

Notably, there was “a huge and very important” change in hair dye ingredients in the 1980s after the Food and Drug Administration warned about some chemicals in permanent hair dyes and the cosmetic industry altered their formulas, lead author Dr. Zhang said.

However, the researchers could not analyze use before and after the changes because not enough women reported first use of permanent hair dye after 1980 (only 1890 of 117,200 participants).

“We could expect that the current ingredients should make it safer,” Dr. Zhang said.
 

Study details

The researchers report that ever-users of permanent hair dyes had no significant increases in risk for solid cancers (n = 20,805; hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.01) or hematopoietic cancers overall (n = 1,807; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.10) compared with nonusers.

Additionally, ever-users did not have an increased risk for most specific cancers or cancer-related death (n = 4,860; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.02).

As noted above, there were some exceptions.

Basal cell carcinoma risk was slightly increased for ever-users (n = 22,560; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). Cumulative dose (a calculation of duration and frequency) was positively associated with risk for ER– breast cancer, PR– breast cancer, ER–/PR– breast cancer, and ovarian cancer, with risk rising in accordance with the total amount of dye.

Notably, at a cumulative dose of ≥200 uses, there was a 20% increase in the relative risk for ER- breast cancer (n = 1521; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P value for trend, .03). At the same cumulative dose, there was a 28% increase in the relative risk for ER-/PR- breast cancer (n = 1287; HR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P value for trend, .006).

In addition, an increased risk for Hodgkin lymphoma was observed, but only for women with naturally dark hair (the calculation was based on 70 women, 24 of whom had dark hair).

In a press statement, senior author Eva Schernhammer, PhD, of Harvard and the Medical University of Vienna, said the results “justify further prospective validation.”

She also explained that there are many variables to consider in this research, including different populations and countries, different susceptibility genotypes, different exposure settings (personal use vs. occupational exposure), and different colors of the permanent hair dyes used (dark dyes vs. light dyes).

Geographic location is a particularly important variable, suggested the study authors.

They pointed out that Europe, but not the United States, banned some individual hair dye ingredients that were considered carcinogenic during both the 1980s and 2000s. One country has even tighter oversight: “The most restrictive regulation of hair dyes exists in Japan, where cosmetic products are considered equivalent to drugs.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The study authors and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest study of its kind has found no positive association between personal use of permanent hair dye and the risk for most cancers and cancer mortality.

The findings come from the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of more than 117,000 women who have been followed for 36 years and who did not have cancer at baseline.

The findings were published online on September 2 in the BMJ.

The results “offer some reassurance against concerns that personal use of permanent hair dyes might be associated with increased cancer risk or mortality,” write the investigators, with first author Yin Zhang, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The findings, which are limited to White women in the United States, indicate correlation, not causation, the authors emphasize.

Nevertheless, the researchers found an increased risk for some cancers among hair dye users, especially with greater cumulative dose (200 or more uses during the study period). The risk was increased for basal cell carcinoma, breast cancer (specifically, estrogen receptor negative [ER–], progesterone receptor negative [PR–], and hormone receptor negative [ER–, PR–]), and ovarian cancer.

A British expert not involved in the study dismissed these findings. “The reported associations are very weak, and, given the number of associations reported in this manuscript, they are very likely to be chance findings,” commented Paul Pharoah, PhD, professor of cancer epidemiology at the University of Cambridge (England).

“For the cancers where an increase in risk is reported, the results are not compelling. Even if they were real findings, the associations may not be cause-and-effect, and, even if they were causal associations, the magnitude of the effects are so small that any risk would be trivial.

“In short, none of the findings reported in this manuscript suggest that women who use hair dye are putting themselves at increased risk of cancer,” he stated.

A U.S. researcher who has previously coauthored a study suggesting an association between hair dye and breast cancer agreed that the increases in risk reported in this current study are “small.” But they are “of interest,” especially for breast and ovarian cancer, said Alexandra White, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

Hair dyes include compounds that “are not just potential carcinogens but also act as endocrine disruptors,” she said in an interview.

“In both breast and ovarian cancer, we know that hormones play an important part in the etiology ... so it’s biologically plausible that you would see [these associations in the current study],” added Dr. White, who was approached for comment.

However, she added that, even with the “modest” 20%-28% increase in the relative risk for certain breast cancers linked to a heavy cumulative dose of dyes in the current study, “there doesn’t seem to be any strong association with any cancer type.”

But she also pointed out that the most outstanding risk association was among ER–/PR– breast cancers, which are the “most aggressive and difficult to treat,” and thus the new findings are “important.”

Dr. White is the lead author of a 2019 study that received a lot of media attention because it rang an alarm bell about hair dyes and breast cancer risk.

That study concluded that ever using permanent hair dye or hair straighteners was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer than never using them and that this higher risk was especially associated with Black women. However, the study participants were from the prospective Sister Study. The participants in that study had no history of breast cancer, but they each had at least one sister who did. This family history of breast cancer may represent selection bias.
 

With changes in the 1980s, even safer now?

The study of hair dyes and cancer has “major public health implications” because the use of hair dye is widespread, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write in their article. They estimate that 50% to 80% of women and 10% of men aged 40 years and older in the United States and Europe use hair dye.

Permanent hair dyes “pose the greatest potential concern,” they stated, adding that these account for approximately 80% of hair dyes used in the United States and Europe and an even higher percentage in Asia.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies occupational exposure to hair dyes as probably carcinogenic, but the carcinogenicity resulting from personal use of hair dyes is not classifiable – thus, there is no warning about at-home usage.

Notably, there was “a huge and very important” change in hair dye ingredients in the 1980s after the Food and Drug Administration warned about some chemicals in permanent hair dyes and the cosmetic industry altered their formulas, lead author Dr. Zhang said.

However, the researchers could not analyze use before and after the changes because not enough women reported first use of permanent hair dye after 1980 (only 1890 of 117,200 participants).

“We could expect that the current ingredients should make it safer,” Dr. Zhang said.
 

Study details

The researchers report that ever-users of permanent hair dyes had no significant increases in risk for solid cancers (n = 20,805; hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.01) or hematopoietic cancers overall (n = 1,807; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.10) compared with nonusers.

Additionally, ever-users did not have an increased risk for most specific cancers or cancer-related death (n = 4,860; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.02).

As noted above, there were some exceptions.

Basal cell carcinoma risk was slightly increased for ever-users (n = 22,560; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). Cumulative dose (a calculation of duration and frequency) was positively associated with risk for ER– breast cancer, PR– breast cancer, ER–/PR– breast cancer, and ovarian cancer, with risk rising in accordance with the total amount of dye.

Notably, at a cumulative dose of ≥200 uses, there was a 20% increase in the relative risk for ER- breast cancer (n = 1521; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P value for trend, .03). At the same cumulative dose, there was a 28% increase in the relative risk for ER-/PR- breast cancer (n = 1287; HR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P value for trend, .006).

In addition, an increased risk for Hodgkin lymphoma was observed, but only for women with naturally dark hair (the calculation was based on 70 women, 24 of whom had dark hair).

In a press statement, senior author Eva Schernhammer, PhD, of Harvard and the Medical University of Vienna, said the results “justify further prospective validation.”

She also explained that there are many variables to consider in this research, including different populations and countries, different susceptibility genotypes, different exposure settings (personal use vs. occupational exposure), and different colors of the permanent hair dyes used (dark dyes vs. light dyes).

Geographic location is a particularly important variable, suggested the study authors.

They pointed out that Europe, but not the United States, banned some individual hair dye ingredients that were considered carcinogenic during both the 1980s and 2000s. One country has even tighter oversight: “The most restrictive regulation of hair dyes exists in Japan, where cosmetic products are considered equivalent to drugs.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The study authors and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

To the Editor:

The concept of field cancerization has been well described since its initial proposal by Slaughter et al¹ in 1953. It describes a field of genetically altered cells where multiple clonally related neoplasms can develop.^2,3 Treatment of patients with multiple neoplasms within an area of field cancerization can be especially challenging. We report a patient with field cancerization who had multiple squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and keratoacanthomas (KAs) that arose within the field.

A 78-year-old man initially presented with a papule on the right forearm of 3 months’ duration. He had a medical history of cutaneous SCC, myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, gout, and diverticulosis. He was not taking any chronic immunosuppressants that may have predisposed him to the development of nonmelanoma skin cancer. The papule was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated invasive SCC. A month later it was excised with clear margins.

Approximately 5 weeks after the excision, he returned with an enlarging lesion on the right forearm just medial to the excision site. The lesion was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated SCC. Two months later the lesion was excised with clear margins. Four weeks later he returned with a new lesion adjacent to the medial aspect of the prior excision. The lesion was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated SCC. Four weeks later the lesion was excised with clear margins.

Another 4 weeks later the patient returned with a new lesion on the excision site. The lesion was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated SCC. The lesion was treated with radiotherapy, with a 5800-cGy course completed 2 months later. The next month, 2 papules just adjacent to the radiotherapy treatment field were biopsied and diagnosed as well-differentiated SCC, KA type. One week later, 2 additional new papules adjacent to the radiotherapy treatment field were biopsied and diagnosed as moderately differentiated SCC, KA type. At this time, the patient had 4 biopsy-proven KAs on the right forearm in the area of prior radiation (Figure, A). The radiation oncologist felt that further radiation was no longer indicated. A consultation was sought with surgical oncology, and wide excision of the field with sentinel lymph node biopsy and skin grafting was recommended. Computed tomography with contrast of the chest and right arm ordered by surgical oncology did not reveal metastatic disease.

After discussion of the risks, alternatives, and benefits of surgery, the patient elected to try nonsurgical treatment. He was treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) cream 5% twice daily for 4 weeks. It was applied to the right arm from the elbow to the wrist and occluded under an elastic bandage. The patient stated that the biopsy sites became sore and inflamed during the treatment. After 4 weeks of treatment, all 4 KAs had healed without clinical evidence of tumor. During this time, however, the previously treated 2 sites had developed adjacent firm pink papules (Figure, B); these 2 lesions were then treated with intralesional 5-FU 50 mg/mL once weekly to resolution at 4 and 5 weeks, respectively. The proximal lesion was treated with 7.5 mg on week 1 and 5 mg on weeks 2, 3, and 4. The larger distal lesion was treated with 12.5 mg on week 1 and 5 mg on weeks 2, 3, 4, and 5. The volume injected was determined by ability to blanch and indurate the lesion and was decreased due to the shrinking size of the tumor. After 3 injections, both tumors had substantially decreased in size (Figure, C). The patient noted pain during injection but found the procedure tolerable and preferable to surgery. There were no other adverse events. At the end of treatment, both tumors had clinically resolved. No recurrence or development of new tumors was reported over 3 years of follow-up after the last injection.

The development of an expanding neoplastic field appears to play an important role in cutaneous carcinogenesis. It is necessary to consider the cutaneous field cancerization as a highly photodamaged area that contains clinical and subclinical lesions.^2-4 The treatment of cutaneous neoplasms, SCC in particular, should focus not only on the tumor itself but also on the surrounding tissue. Adjunctive field-directed therapies should be considered after treatment of the primary tumor.⁴

Our patient continued to develop SCCs on the right forearm after multiple excisions with clear margins and subsequently was treated with radiation therapy. He then developed 4 KAs after radiation therapy to the right forearm. Topical 5-FU is a well-described treatment of field cancerization.² In our patient, 5-FU cream 5% applied twice daily from the wrist to the elbow under occlusion for 4 weeks led to the involution of all 4 KAs. During this time, our patient developed 2 additional firm pink papules near the previously treated sites, which resolved with intralesional 5-FU weekly for 4 and 5 weeks, respectively.

Intralesional 5-FU has been described for the treatment of multiple and difficult-to-treat KAs. It is an antimetabolite and structural analog of uracil that disrupts DNA and RNA synthesis. It is contraindicated in liver disease, pregnancy or breastfeeding, and allergy to the medication.⁶ Intralesional 5-FU dosing recommendations for KAs include use of a 50-mg/mL solution and injecting 0.1 to 1 mL until the lesion blanches in color, which may be repeated every 1 to 4 weeks.^7,8 The maximum recommended daily dose is 800 mg.⁶ Pretreatment with intralesional 1% lidocaine has been recommended by some authors due to pain with injection.⁸ Recommendations for laboratory monitoring include a complete blood cell count with differential at baseline and weekly. Side effects include local pain, erythema, crusting, ulceration, and necrosis. Systemic side effects include cytopenia and gastrointestinal tract upset.⁶ Intralesional 5-FU has been used successfully in a single dose of 10 mg per lesion in combination with systemic acitretin for the treatment of multiple KAs induced by vemurafenib.⁹ It also has been effective in the treatment of multiple recurrent reactive KAs developing in surgical margins.⁷ A review article reported that the use of intralesional 5-FU produced a 98% cure rate in 56 treated KAs.⁶ Alternative intralesional agents that may be considered for KAs include methotrexate, bleomycin, and interferon alfa-2b.^6,7

Field cancerization may cause the development of multiple clonally related neoplasms within a field of genetically altered cells that may continue to develop after excision with clear margins or radiation therapy. Given the success of treatment in our patient, we recommend consideration for topical and intralesional 5-FU in patients who develop SCCs and KAs within an area of field cancerization.

To the Editor:

The concept of field cancerization has been well described since its initial proposal by Slaughter et al¹ in 1953. It describes a field of genetically altered cells where multiple clonally related neoplasms can develop.^2,3 Treatment of patients with multiple neoplasms within an area of field cancerization can be especially challenging. We report a patient with field cancerization who had multiple squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and keratoacanthomas (KAs) that arose within the field.

A 78-year-old man initially presented with a papule on the right forearm of 3 months’ duration. He had a medical history of cutaneous SCC, myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, gout, and diverticulosis. He was not taking any chronic immunosuppressants that may have predisposed him to the development of nonmelanoma skin cancer. The papule was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated invasive SCC. A month later it was excised with clear margins.

Approximately 5 weeks after the excision, he returned with an enlarging lesion on the right forearm just medial to the excision site. The lesion was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated SCC. Two months later the lesion was excised with clear margins. Four weeks later he returned with a new lesion adjacent to the medial aspect of the prior excision. The lesion was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated SCC. Four weeks later the lesion was excised with clear margins.

Another 4 weeks later the patient returned with a new lesion on the excision site. The lesion was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated SCC. The lesion was treated with radiotherapy, with a 5800-cGy course completed 2 months later. The next month, 2 papules just adjacent to the radiotherapy treatment field were biopsied and diagnosed as well-differentiated SCC, KA type. One week later, 2 additional new papules adjacent to the radiotherapy treatment field were biopsied and diagnosed as moderately differentiated SCC, KA type. At this time, the patient had 4 biopsy-proven KAs on the right forearm in the area of prior radiation (Figure, A). The radiation oncologist felt that further radiation was no longer indicated. A consultation was sought with surgical oncology, and wide excision of the field with sentinel lymph node biopsy and skin grafting was recommended. Computed tomography with contrast of the chest and right arm ordered by surgical oncology did not reveal metastatic disease.

After discussion of the risks, alternatives, and benefits of surgery, the patient elected to try nonsurgical treatment. He was treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) cream 5% twice daily for 4 weeks. It was applied to the right arm from the elbow to the wrist and occluded under an elastic bandage. The patient stated that the biopsy sites became sore and inflamed during the treatment. After 4 weeks of treatment, all 4 KAs had healed without clinical evidence of tumor. During this time, however, the previously treated 2 sites had developed adjacent firm pink papules (Figure, B); these 2 lesions were then treated with intralesional 5-FU 50 mg/mL once weekly to resolution at 4 and 5 weeks, respectively. The proximal lesion was treated with 7.5 mg on week 1 and 5 mg on weeks 2, 3, and 4. The larger distal lesion was treated with 12.5 mg on week 1 and 5 mg on weeks 2, 3, 4, and 5. The volume injected was determined by ability to blanch and indurate the lesion and was decreased due to the shrinking size of the tumor. After 3 injections, both tumors had substantially decreased in size (Figure, C). The patient noted pain during injection but found the procedure tolerable and preferable to surgery. There were no other adverse events. At the end of treatment, both tumors had clinically resolved. No recurrence or development of new tumors was reported over 3 years of follow-up after the last injection.

The development of an expanding neoplastic field appears to play an important role in cutaneous carcinogenesis. It is necessary to consider the cutaneous field cancerization as a highly photodamaged area that contains clinical and subclinical lesions.^2-4 The treatment of cutaneous neoplasms, SCC in particular, should focus not only on the tumor itself but also on the surrounding tissue. Adjunctive field-directed therapies should be considered after treatment of the primary tumor.⁴

Our patient continued to develop SCCs on the right forearm after multiple excisions with clear margins and subsequently was treated with radiation therapy. He then developed 4 KAs after radiation therapy to the right forearm. Topical 5-FU is a well-described treatment of field cancerization.² In our patient, 5-FU cream 5% applied twice daily from the wrist to the elbow under occlusion for 4 weeks led to the involution of all 4 KAs. During this time, our patient developed 2 additional firm pink papules near the previously treated sites, which resolved with intralesional 5-FU weekly for 4 and 5 weeks, respectively.

Intralesional 5-FU has been described for the treatment of multiple and difficult-to-treat KAs. It is an antimetabolite and structural analog of uracil that disrupts DNA and RNA synthesis. It is contraindicated in liver disease, pregnancy or breastfeeding, and allergy to the medication.⁶ Intralesional 5-FU dosing recommendations for KAs include use of a 50-mg/mL solution and injecting 0.1 to 1 mL until the lesion blanches in color, which may be repeated every 1 to 4 weeks.^7,8 The maximum recommended daily dose is 800 mg.⁶ Pretreatment with intralesional 1% lidocaine has been recommended by some authors due to pain with injection.⁸ Recommendations for laboratory monitoring include a complete blood cell count with differential at baseline and weekly. Side effects include local pain, erythema, crusting, ulceration, and necrosis. Systemic side effects include cytopenia and gastrointestinal tract upset.⁶ Intralesional 5-FU has been used successfully in a single dose of 10 mg per lesion in combination with systemic acitretin for the treatment of multiple KAs induced by vemurafenib.⁹ It also has been effective in the treatment of multiple recurrent reactive KAs developing in surgical margins.⁷ A review article reported that the use of intralesional 5-FU produced a 98% cure rate in 56 treated KAs.⁶ Alternative intralesional agents that may be considered for KAs include methotrexate, bleomycin, and interferon alfa-2b.^6,7

Field cancerization may cause the development of multiple clonally related neoplasms within a field of genetically altered cells that may continue to develop after excision with clear margins or radiation therapy. Given the success of treatment in our patient, we recommend consideration for topical and intralesional 5-FU in patients who develop SCCs and KAs within an area of field cancerization.

To the Editor:

The concept of field cancerization has been well described since its initial proposal by Slaughter et al¹ in 1953. It describes a field of genetically altered cells where multiple clonally related neoplasms can develop.^2,3 Treatment of patients with multiple neoplasms within an area of field cancerization can be especially challenging. We report a patient with field cancerization who had multiple squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and keratoacanthomas (KAs) that arose within the field.

A 78-year-old man initially presented with a papule on the right forearm of 3 months’ duration. He had a medical history of cutaneous SCC, myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, gout, and diverticulosis. He was not taking any chronic immunosuppressants that may have predisposed him to the development of nonmelanoma skin cancer. The papule was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated invasive SCC. A month later it was excised with clear margins.

Approximately 5 weeks after the excision, he returned with an enlarging lesion on the right forearm just medial to the excision site. The lesion was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated SCC. Two months later the lesion was excised with clear margins. Four weeks later he returned with a new lesion adjacent to the medial aspect of the prior excision. The lesion was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated SCC. Four weeks later the lesion was excised with clear margins.

Another 4 weeks later the patient returned with a new lesion on the excision site. The lesion was biopsied and diagnosed as a well-differentiated SCC. The lesion was treated with radiotherapy, with a 5800-cGy course completed 2 months later. The next month, 2 papules just adjacent to the radiotherapy treatment field were biopsied and diagnosed as well-differentiated SCC, KA type. One week later, 2 additional new papules adjacent to the radiotherapy treatment field were biopsied and diagnosed as moderately differentiated SCC, KA type. At this time, the patient had 4 biopsy-proven KAs on the right forearm in the area of prior radiation (Figure, A). The radiation oncologist felt that further radiation was no longer indicated. A consultation was sought with surgical oncology, and wide excision of the field with sentinel lymph node biopsy and skin grafting was recommended. Computed tomography with contrast of the chest and right arm ordered by surgical oncology did not reveal metastatic disease.

After discussion of the risks, alternatives, and benefits of surgery, the patient elected to try nonsurgical treatment. He was treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) cream 5% twice daily for 4 weeks. It was applied to the right arm from the elbow to the wrist and occluded under an elastic bandage. The patient stated that the biopsy sites became sore and inflamed during the treatment. After 4 weeks of treatment, all 4 KAs had healed without clinical evidence of tumor. During this time, however, the previously treated 2 sites had developed adjacent firm pink papules (Figure, B); these 2 lesions were then treated with intralesional 5-FU 50 mg/mL once weekly to resolution at 4 and 5 weeks, respectively. The proximal lesion was treated with 7.5 mg on week 1 and 5 mg on weeks 2, 3, and 4. The larger distal lesion was treated with 12.5 mg on week 1 and 5 mg on weeks 2, 3, 4, and 5. The volume injected was determined by ability to blanch and indurate the lesion and was decreased due to the shrinking size of the tumor. After 3 injections, both tumors had substantially decreased in size (Figure, C). The patient noted pain during injection but found the procedure tolerable and preferable to surgery. There were no other adverse events. At the end of treatment, both tumors had clinically resolved. No recurrence or development of new tumors was reported over 3 years of follow-up after the last injection.

The development of an expanding neoplastic field appears to play an important role in cutaneous carcinogenesis. It is necessary to consider the cutaneous field cancerization as a highly photodamaged area that contains clinical and subclinical lesions.^2-4 The treatment of cutaneous neoplasms, SCC in particular, should focus not only on the tumor itself but also on the surrounding tissue. Adjunctive field-directed therapies should be considered after treatment of the primary tumor.⁴

Our patient continued to develop SCCs on the right forearm after multiple excisions with clear margins and subsequently was treated with radiation therapy. He then developed 4 KAs after radiation therapy to the right forearm. Topical 5-FU is a well-described treatment of field cancerization.² In our patient, 5-FU cream 5% applied twice daily from the wrist to the elbow under occlusion for 4 weeks led to the involution of all 4 KAs. During this time, our patient developed 2 additional firm pink papules near the previously treated sites, which resolved with intralesional 5-FU weekly for 4 and 5 weeks, respectively.

Intralesional 5-FU has been described for the treatment of multiple and difficult-to-treat KAs. It is an antimetabolite and structural analog of uracil that disrupts DNA and RNA synthesis. It is contraindicated in liver disease, pregnancy or breastfeeding, and allergy to the medication.⁶ Intralesional 5-FU dosing recommendations for KAs include use of a 50-mg/mL solution and injecting 0.1 to 1 mL until the lesion blanches in color, which may be repeated every 1 to 4 weeks.^7,8 The maximum recommended daily dose is 800 mg.⁶ Pretreatment with intralesional 1% lidocaine has been recommended by some authors due to pain with injection.⁸ Recommendations for laboratory monitoring include a complete blood cell count with differential at baseline and weekly. Side effects include local pain, erythema, crusting, ulceration, and necrosis. Systemic side effects include cytopenia and gastrointestinal tract upset.⁶ Intralesional 5-FU has been used successfully in a single dose of 10 mg per lesion in combination with systemic acitretin for the treatment of multiple KAs induced by vemurafenib.⁹ It also has been effective in the treatment of multiple recurrent reactive KAs developing in surgical margins.⁷ A review article reported that the use of intralesional 5-FU produced a 98% cure rate in 56 treated KAs.⁶ Alternative intralesional agents that may be considered for KAs include methotrexate, bleomycin, and interferon alfa-2b.^6,7

Field cancerization may cause the development of multiple clonally related neoplasms within a field of genetically altered cells that may continue to develop after excision with clear margins or radiation therapy. Given the success of treatment in our patient, we recommend consideration for topical and intralesional 5-FU in patients who develop SCCs and KAs within an area of field cancerization.

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

A large postmarketing surveillance study of topical calcineurin inhibitor exposure in adults with atopic dermatitis has found no increased risk of developing keratinocyte carcinomas overall or with basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas associated with treatment.

The results also suggest dose, frequency, and exposure duration to the topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are not associated with an increased risk of keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs), basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to Maryam M. Asgari, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration announced the addition of the boxed warning to the labeling of TCIs regarding a possible risk of cancer associated with use of pimecrolimus (Elidel) and with tacrolimus (Protopic), because of an increased risk of KCs associated with oral calcineurin inhibitors and reports of skin cancer in patients on TCIs.

“Controversy has surrounded the association between TCI exposure and KC risk since the black-box warning was issued by the FDA. A hypothesized mechanism of action for TCIs increasing KC risk includes a direct effect of calcineurin inhibition on DNA repair and apoptosis, which could influence keratinocyte carcinogenesis,” the authors of the study wrote in JAMA Dermatology. But, they added, there have been “conflicting results” in research exploring this association.

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Asgari and coauthors evaluated 93,746 adult patients with AD at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, diagnosed between January 2002 and December 2013, comparing skin cancer risk among 7,033 patients exposed to TCIs, 73,674 patients taking topical corticosteroids, and 46,141 patients who had not been exposed to TCIs or topical corticosteroids. Results were adjusted in a multivariate Cox regression analysis for age, gender, race/ethnicity, calendar year, number of dermatology visits per year, history of KCs, immunosuppression, prior systemic AD treatment, autoimmune disease, treatment with ultraviolet therapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy.

The researchers also examined how TCI dose, frequency and exposure duration impacted skin cancer risk. Patients were grouped by high-dose (0.1%) and low-dose (0.03%) formulations of tacrolimus; and the 1% formulation of pimecrolimus. Frequency of use was defined as low (once daily or less) or high (twice daily or more), and exposure duration was based on short- (less than 2 years), moderate- (2-4 years), and long-term (4 years or more) use. Patients were at least 40 years old (mean age, 58.5 years), 58.7% were women, 50.5% were White, 20.6% were Asian, 12.2% were Hispanic, and 7.9% were Black. They were followed for a mean of 7.70 years.

Compared with patients who were exposed to topical corticosteroids, there was no association between risk of KCs and exposure to TCIs in patients with AD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.13). There were also no significant differences in risk of BCCs and TCI exposure (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14) and risk of SCCs and TCI exposure (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08), compared with patients exposed to topical corticosteroids.

Results were similar for risk of KCs (aHR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), BCCs (aHR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.19), and SCCs (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06) when patients exposed to TCIs were compared with those with AD who were unexposed to any medication. In secondary analyses, Dr. Asgari and coauthors found no association with overall risk of KCs, or risk of BCCs or SCCs, and the dose, frequency, or exposure duration to TCIs.

“Our findings appear to support those of smaller postmarketing surveillance studies of TCI and KC risk and may provide some reassurance about the safety profile of this class of topical agents in the treatment of AD,” they concluded.

In an interview, Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, said initial concerns surrounding TCIs were based on high doses potentially increasing the risk of malignancy, and off-label use of TCIs for inflammatory skin diseases other than AD.

“However, the FDA’s concerns may not have been justified,” he said. The manufacturers of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus have published results of 10-year observational registries that assess cancer risk, which “found no evidence of any associations between TCIs and malignancy,” noted Dr. Silverberg, who is also director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University.

Elizabeth Hughes, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in San Antonio, said in an interview that initial enthusiasm was “huge” for use of TCIs like tacrolimus in patients with AD when they first became available, especially in the pediatric population, for whom clinicians are hesitant to use long-term strong topical steroids. However, parents of children taking the medication soon became concerned about potential side effects.

“The TCIs can be absorbed to a small extent through body surface area, so it was not a big leap to become concerned that infants and small children could absorb enough ... into the bloodstream to give a similar side effect profile as oral tacrolimus,” she said.

The addition of the boxed warning in 2006 was frustrating for dermatologists “because a medication we needed very much for a young population now was ‘labeled’ and parents were scared to use it,” Dr. Hughes explained.

Dr. Silverberg noted that, while the results of the new study are unlikely to change clinical practice, they are reassuring, and provide real-world data and “further confirmation of previous studies showing no associations between AD and malignancy.”

“Since AD and skin cancer are both commonly managed by dermatologists, there is potential for increased surveillance and detection of skin cancers in AD patients. So, the greatest chance of seeing a false-positive signal for malignancy would likely occur with skin cancers,” he pointed out. “Yet, even in the case of skin cancers, there were no demonstrable signals.”

Based on the results, “I think it is definitely reasonable to reconsider” the TCI boxed warning, but there isn’t much precedent for boxed warnings to be removed from labeling, Dr. Silverberg commented. “Unfortunately, the black-box warning may persist despite a lot of reassuring data.”

In a related editorial, Aaron M. Drucker, MD, ScM, and Mina Tadrous, PharmD, PhD, of the University of Toronto, said the boxed warning “had the intent of helping patients and clinicians understand possible risks,” but also carried the “potential for harm” if patients discontinued or did not adhere to treatment. “Safety warnings on topical medications could lead to undertreatment of atopic dermatitis, reduced quality of life and, potentially, increased use of more toxic systemic medications.”

Long-term studies of medications and cancer risk are challenging to perform, having to account for dose-response relationships, confounding by indication, and time bias, among other factors, and this study “recognizes and attempts to address many of these challenges,” Dr. Drucker and Dr. Tadrous wrote.

These results are similar to previous studies that have “consistently reported no or minimal association between TCI use and skin cancer,” they noted, adding that, “if an association exists, it is likely very small, meaning that skin cancer attributable to TCI use is rare. Clinicians can use this evidence to counsel and reassure patients for whom the benefits of ongoing treatment with TCIs may outweigh the harms.”

This study was funded by a grant from Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Asgari reported receiving grants from Valeant during the study, and from Pfizer not related to the study. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Drucker reported relationships with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health, CME Outfitters, Eczema Society of Canada, Sanofi, Regeneron, and RTI Health Solutions in the form of paid fees, consultancies, honoraria, educational grants, and other compensation paid to him and/or his institution. Dr. Tadrous reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Silverberg reported receiving honoraria for advisory board, speaker, and consultant services from numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers, and research grants for investigator services from GlaxoSmithKline and Galderma. Dr. Hughes Tichy reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Silverberg is a member of the Dermatology News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Asgari MM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Aug 12. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2240.

A large postmarketing surveillance study of topical calcineurin inhibitor exposure in adults with atopic dermatitis has found no increased risk of developing keratinocyte carcinomas overall or with basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas associated with treatment.

The results also suggest dose, frequency, and exposure duration to the topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are not associated with an increased risk of keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs), basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to Maryam M. Asgari, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration announced the addition of the boxed warning to the labeling of TCIs regarding a possible risk of cancer associated with use of pimecrolimus (Elidel) and with tacrolimus (Protopic), because of an increased risk of KCs associated with oral calcineurin inhibitors and reports of skin cancer in patients on TCIs.

“Controversy has surrounded the association between TCI exposure and KC risk since the black-box warning was issued by the FDA. A hypothesized mechanism of action for TCIs increasing KC risk includes a direct effect of calcineurin inhibition on DNA repair and apoptosis, which could influence keratinocyte carcinogenesis,” the authors of the study wrote in JAMA Dermatology. But, they added, there have been “conflicting results” in research exploring this association.

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Asgari and coauthors evaluated 93,746 adult patients with AD at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, diagnosed between January 2002 and December 2013, comparing skin cancer risk among 7,033 patients exposed to TCIs, 73,674 patients taking topical corticosteroids, and 46,141 patients who had not been exposed to TCIs or topical corticosteroids. Results were adjusted in a multivariate Cox regression analysis for age, gender, race/ethnicity, calendar year, number of dermatology visits per year, history of KCs, immunosuppression, prior systemic AD treatment, autoimmune disease, treatment with ultraviolet therapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy.

The researchers also examined how TCI dose, frequency and exposure duration impacted skin cancer risk. Patients were grouped by high-dose (0.1%) and low-dose (0.03%) formulations of tacrolimus; and the 1% formulation of pimecrolimus. Frequency of use was defined as low (once daily or less) or high (twice daily or more), and exposure duration was based on short- (less than 2 years), moderate- (2-4 years), and long-term (4 years or more) use. Patients were at least 40 years old (mean age, 58.5 years), 58.7% were women, 50.5% were White, 20.6% were Asian, 12.2% were Hispanic, and 7.9% were Black. They were followed for a mean of 7.70 years.

Compared with patients who were exposed to topical corticosteroids, there was no association between risk of KCs and exposure to TCIs in patients with AD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.13). There were also no significant differences in risk of BCCs and TCI exposure (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14) and risk of SCCs and TCI exposure (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08), compared with patients exposed to topical corticosteroids.

Results were similar for risk of KCs (aHR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), BCCs (aHR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.19), and SCCs (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06) when patients exposed to TCIs were compared with those with AD who were unexposed to any medication. In secondary analyses, Dr. Asgari and coauthors found no association with overall risk of KCs, or risk of BCCs or SCCs, and the dose, frequency, or exposure duration to TCIs.

“Our findings appear to support those of smaller postmarketing surveillance studies of TCI and KC risk and may provide some reassurance about the safety profile of this class of topical agents in the treatment of AD,” they concluded.

In an interview, Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, said initial concerns surrounding TCIs were based on high doses potentially increasing the risk of malignancy, and off-label use of TCIs for inflammatory skin diseases other than AD.

“However, the FDA’s concerns may not have been justified,” he said. The manufacturers of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus have published results of 10-year observational registries that assess cancer risk, which “found no evidence of any associations between TCIs and malignancy,” noted Dr. Silverberg, who is also director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University.

Elizabeth Hughes, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in San Antonio, said in an interview that initial enthusiasm was “huge” for use of TCIs like tacrolimus in patients with AD when they first became available, especially in the pediatric population, for whom clinicians are hesitant to use long-term strong topical steroids. However, parents of children taking the medication soon became concerned about potential side effects.

“The TCIs can be absorbed to a small extent through body surface area, so it was not a big leap to become concerned that infants and small children could absorb enough ... into the bloodstream to give a similar side effect profile as oral tacrolimus,” she said.

The addition of the boxed warning in 2006 was frustrating for dermatologists “because a medication we needed very much for a young population now was ‘labeled’ and parents were scared to use it,” Dr. Hughes explained.

Dr. Silverberg noted that, while the results of the new study are unlikely to change clinical practice, they are reassuring, and provide real-world data and “further confirmation of previous studies showing no associations between AD and malignancy.”

“Since AD and skin cancer are both commonly managed by dermatologists, there is potential for increased surveillance and detection of skin cancers in AD patients. So, the greatest chance of seeing a false-positive signal for malignancy would likely occur with skin cancers,” he pointed out. “Yet, even in the case of skin cancers, there were no demonstrable signals.”

Based on the results, “I think it is definitely reasonable to reconsider” the TCI boxed warning, but there isn’t much precedent for boxed warnings to be removed from labeling, Dr. Silverberg commented. “Unfortunately, the black-box warning may persist despite a lot of reassuring data.”

In a related editorial, Aaron M. Drucker, MD, ScM, and Mina Tadrous, PharmD, PhD, of the University of Toronto, said the boxed warning “had the intent of helping patients and clinicians understand possible risks,” but also carried the “potential for harm” if patients discontinued or did not adhere to treatment. “Safety warnings on topical medications could lead to undertreatment of atopic dermatitis, reduced quality of life and, potentially, increased use of more toxic systemic medications.”

Long-term studies of medications and cancer risk are challenging to perform, having to account for dose-response relationships, confounding by indication, and time bias, among other factors, and this study “recognizes and attempts to address many of these challenges,” Dr. Drucker and Dr. Tadrous wrote.

These results are similar to previous studies that have “consistently reported no or minimal association between TCI use and skin cancer,” they noted, adding that, “if an association exists, it is likely very small, meaning that skin cancer attributable to TCI use is rare. Clinicians can use this evidence to counsel and reassure patients for whom the benefits of ongoing treatment with TCIs may outweigh the harms.”

This study was funded by a grant from Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Asgari reported receiving grants from Valeant during the study, and from Pfizer not related to the study. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Drucker reported relationships with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health, CME Outfitters, Eczema Society of Canada, Sanofi, Regeneron, and RTI Health Solutions in the form of paid fees, consultancies, honoraria, educational grants, and other compensation paid to him and/or his institution. Dr. Tadrous reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Silverberg reported receiving honoraria for advisory board, speaker, and consultant services from numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers, and research grants for investigator services from GlaxoSmithKline and Galderma. Dr. Hughes Tichy reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Silverberg is a member of the Dermatology News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Asgari MM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Aug 12. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2240.

A large postmarketing surveillance study of topical calcineurin inhibitor exposure in adults with atopic dermatitis has found no increased risk of developing keratinocyte carcinomas overall or with basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas associated with treatment.

The results also suggest dose, frequency, and exposure duration to the topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are not associated with an increased risk of keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs), basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to Maryam M. Asgari, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration announced the addition of the boxed warning to the labeling of TCIs regarding a possible risk of cancer associated with use of pimecrolimus (Elidel) and with tacrolimus (Protopic), because of an increased risk of KCs associated with oral calcineurin inhibitors and reports of skin cancer in patients on TCIs.

“Controversy has surrounded the association between TCI exposure and KC risk since the black-box warning was issued by the FDA. A hypothesized mechanism of action for TCIs increasing KC risk includes a direct effect of calcineurin inhibition on DNA repair and apoptosis, which could influence keratinocyte carcinogenesis,” the authors of the study wrote in JAMA Dermatology. But, they added, there have been “conflicting results” in research exploring this association.

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Asgari and coauthors evaluated 93,746 adult patients with AD at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, diagnosed between January 2002 and December 2013, comparing skin cancer risk among 7,033 patients exposed to TCIs, 73,674 patients taking topical corticosteroids, and 46,141 patients who had not been exposed to TCIs or topical corticosteroids. Results were adjusted in a multivariate Cox regression analysis for age, gender, race/ethnicity, calendar year, number of dermatology visits per year, history of KCs, immunosuppression, prior systemic AD treatment, autoimmune disease, treatment with ultraviolet therapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy.

The researchers also examined how TCI dose, frequency and exposure duration impacted skin cancer risk. Patients were grouped by high-dose (0.1%) and low-dose (0.03%) formulations of tacrolimus; and the 1% formulation of pimecrolimus. Frequency of use was defined as low (once daily or less) or high (twice daily or more), and exposure duration was based on short- (less than 2 years), moderate- (2-4 years), and long-term (4 years or more) use. Patients were at least 40 years old (mean age, 58.5 years), 58.7% were women, 50.5% were White, 20.6% were Asian, 12.2% were Hispanic, and 7.9% were Black. They were followed for a mean of 7.70 years.

Compared with patients who were exposed to topical corticosteroids, there was no association between risk of KCs and exposure to TCIs in patients with AD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.13). There were also no significant differences in risk of BCCs and TCI exposure (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14) and risk of SCCs and TCI exposure (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08), compared with patients exposed to topical corticosteroids.

Results were similar for risk of KCs (aHR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), BCCs (aHR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.19), and SCCs (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06) when patients exposed to TCIs were compared with those with AD who were unexposed to any medication. In secondary analyses, Dr. Asgari and coauthors found no association with overall risk of KCs, or risk of BCCs or SCCs, and the dose, frequency, or exposure duration to TCIs.

“Our findings appear to support those of smaller postmarketing surveillance studies of TCI and KC risk and may provide some reassurance about the safety profile of this class of topical agents in the treatment of AD,” they concluded.

In an interview, Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, said initial concerns surrounding TCIs were based on high doses potentially increasing the risk of malignancy, and off-label use of TCIs for inflammatory skin diseases other than AD.

“However, the FDA’s concerns may not have been justified,” he said. The manufacturers of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus have published results of 10-year observational registries that assess cancer risk, which “found no evidence of any associations between TCIs and malignancy,” noted Dr. Silverberg, who is also director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University.

Elizabeth Hughes, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in San Antonio, said in an interview that initial enthusiasm was “huge” for use of TCIs like tacrolimus in patients with AD when they first became available, especially in the pediatric population, for whom clinicians are hesitant to use long-term strong topical steroids. However, parents of children taking the medication soon became concerned about potential side effects.

“The TCIs can be absorbed to a small extent through body surface area, so it was not a big leap to become concerned that infants and small children could absorb enough ... into the bloodstream to give a similar side effect profile as oral tacrolimus,” she said.

The addition of the boxed warning in 2006 was frustrating for dermatologists “because a medication we needed very much for a young population now was ‘labeled’ and parents were scared to use it,” Dr. Hughes explained.

Dr. Silverberg noted that, while the results of the new study are unlikely to change clinical practice, they are reassuring, and provide real-world data and “further confirmation of previous studies showing no associations between AD and malignancy.”

“Since AD and skin cancer are both commonly managed by dermatologists, there is potential for increased surveillance and detection of skin cancers in AD patients. So, the greatest chance of seeing a false-positive signal for malignancy would likely occur with skin cancers,” he pointed out. “Yet, even in the case of skin cancers, there were no demonstrable signals.”

Based on the results, “I think it is definitely reasonable to reconsider” the TCI boxed warning, but there isn’t much precedent for boxed warnings to be removed from labeling, Dr. Silverberg commented. “Unfortunately, the black-box warning may persist despite a lot of reassuring data.”

In a related editorial, Aaron M. Drucker, MD, ScM, and Mina Tadrous, PharmD, PhD, of the University of Toronto, said the boxed warning “had the intent of helping patients and clinicians understand possible risks,” but also carried the “potential for harm” if patients discontinued or did not adhere to treatment. “Safety warnings on topical medications could lead to undertreatment of atopic dermatitis, reduced quality of life and, potentially, increased use of more toxic systemic medications.”

Long-term studies of medications and cancer risk are challenging to perform, having to account for dose-response relationships, confounding by indication, and time bias, among other factors, and this study “recognizes and attempts to address many of these challenges,” Dr. Drucker and Dr. Tadrous wrote.

These results are similar to previous studies that have “consistently reported no or minimal association between TCI use and skin cancer,” they noted, adding that, “if an association exists, it is likely very small, meaning that skin cancer attributable to TCI use is rare. Clinicians can use this evidence to counsel and reassure patients for whom the benefits of ongoing treatment with TCIs may outweigh the harms.”

This study was funded by a grant from Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Asgari reported receiving grants from Valeant during the study, and from Pfizer not related to the study. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Drucker reported relationships with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health, CME Outfitters, Eczema Society of Canada, Sanofi, Regeneron, and RTI Health Solutions in the form of paid fees, consultancies, honoraria, educational grants, and other compensation paid to him and/or his institution. Dr. Tadrous reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Silverberg reported receiving honoraria for advisory board, speaker, and consultant services from numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers, and research grants for investigator services from GlaxoSmithKline and Galderma. Dr. Hughes Tichy reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Silverberg is a member of the Dermatology News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Asgari MM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Aug 12. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2240.

Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) is associated with an increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and patients who take the drug should limit sun exposure and undergo regular skin cancer screening, according to updates to the medication’s label.

The skin cancer risk is small, however, and patients should continue taking HCTZ, a commonly used diuretic and antihypertensive drug, unless their doctor says otherwise, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration announcement about the labeling changes, which the agency approved on Aug. 20.

HCTZ, first approved in 1959, is associated with photosensitivity. Researchers identified a relationship between HCTZ and nonmelanoma skin cancer in postmarketing studies. Investigators have described dose-response patterns for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

An FDA analysis found that the risk mostly was increased for SCC. The drug was associated with approximately one additional case of SCC per 16,000 patients per year. For white patients who received a cumulative dose of 50,000 mg or more, the risk was greater. In this patient population, HCTZ was associated with about one additional case of SCC per 6,700 patients per year, according to the label.

Reliably estimating the frequency of nonmelanoma skin cancer and establishing a causal relationship to drug exposure is not possible with the available postmarketing data, the label notes

“Treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer is typically local and successful, with very low rates of death,” the FDA said. “Meanwhile, the risks of uncontrolled blood pressure can be severe and include life-threatening heart attacks or stroke. Given this information, patients should continue to use HCTZ and take protective skin care measures to reduce their risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, unless directed otherwise from their health care provider.”

Patients can reduce sun exposure by using broad-spectrum sunscreens with a sun protection factor value of at least 15, limiting time in the sun, and wearing protective clothing, the agency advised.

[email protected]

Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) is associated with an increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and patients who take the drug should limit sun exposure and undergo regular skin cancer screening, according to updates to the medication’s label.

The skin cancer risk is small, however, and patients should continue taking HCTZ, a commonly used diuretic and antihypertensive drug, unless their doctor says otherwise, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration announcement about the labeling changes, which the agency approved on Aug. 20.

HCTZ, first approved in 1959, is associated with photosensitivity. Researchers identified a relationship between HCTZ and nonmelanoma skin cancer in postmarketing studies. Investigators have described dose-response patterns for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

An FDA analysis found that the risk mostly was increased for SCC. The drug was associated with approximately one additional case of SCC per 16,000 patients per year. For white patients who received a cumulative dose of 50,000 mg or more, the risk was greater. In this patient population, HCTZ was associated with about one additional case of SCC per 6,700 patients per year, according to the label.

Reliably estimating the frequency of nonmelanoma skin cancer and establishing a causal relationship to drug exposure is not possible with the available postmarketing data, the label notes

“Treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer is typically local and successful, with very low rates of death,” the FDA said. “Meanwhile, the risks of uncontrolled blood pressure can be severe and include life-threatening heart attacks or stroke. Given this information, patients should continue to use HCTZ and take protective skin care measures to reduce their risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, unless directed otherwise from their health care provider.”

Patients can reduce sun exposure by using broad-spectrum sunscreens with a sun protection factor value of at least 15, limiting time in the sun, and wearing protective clothing, the agency advised.

[email protected]

Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) is associated with an increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and patients who take the drug should limit sun exposure and undergo regular skin cancer screening, according to updates to the medication’s label.

The skin cancer risk is small, however, and patients should continue taking HCTZ, a commonly used diuretic and antihypertensive drug, unless their doctor says otherwise, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration announcement about the labeling changes, which the agency approved on Aug. 20.

HCTZ, first approved in 1959, is associated with photosensitivity. Researchers identified a relationship between HCTZ and nonmelanoma skin cancer in postmarketing studies. Investigators have described dose-response patterns for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

An FDA analysis found that the risk mostly was increased for SCC. The drug was associated with approximately one additional case of SCC per 16,000 patients per year. For white patients who received a cumulative dose of 50,000 mg or more, the risk was greater. In this patient population, HCTZ was associated with about one additional case of SCC per 6,700 patients per year, according to the label.

Reliably estimating the frequency of nonmelanoma skin cancer and establishing a causal relationship to drug exposure is not possible with the available postmarketing data, the label notes

“Treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer is typically local and successful, with very low rates of death,” the FDA said. “Meanwhile, the risks of uncontrolled blood pressure can be severe and include life-threatening heart attacks or stroke. Given this information, patients should continue to use HCTZ and take protective skin care measures to reduce their risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, unless directed otherwise from their health care provider.”

Patients can reduce sun exposure by using broad-spectrum sunscreens with a sun protection factor value of at least 15, limiting time in the sun, and wearing protective clothing, the agency advised.

[email protected]

A new study has quantified cancer risk factors in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, including smoking and the use of certain medications.

“As expected, older age was associated with cancer overall, as well as with the most common cancer subtypes,” wrote Sasha Bernatsky, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To determine the risk of cancer in people with clinically confirmed incident systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the researchers analyzed data from 1,668 newly diagnosed lupus patients with at least one follow-up visit. All patients were enrolled in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort from across 33 different centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. A total of 89% (n = 1,480) were women, and 49% (n = 824) were white. The average follow-up period was 9 years.

Of the 1,668 SLE patients, 65 developed some type of cancer. The cancers included 15 breast;, 10 nonmelanoma skin; 7 lung; 6 hematologic, 6 prostate; 5 melanoma; 3 cervical; 3 renal; 2 gastric; 2 head and neck; 2 thyroid; and 1 rectal, sarcoma, thymoma, or uterine. No patient had more than one type, and the mean age of the cancer patients at time of SLE diagnosis was 45.6 (standard deviation, 14.5).

Almost half of the 65 cancers occurred in past or current smokers, including all of the lung cancers, while only 33% of patients without cancers smoked prior to baseline. After univariate analysis, characteristics associated with a higher risk of all cancers included older age at SLE diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.06), White race/ethnicity (aHR 1.34; 95% CI, 0.76-2.37), and smoking (aHR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.73-2.01).

After multivariate analysis, the two characteristics most associated with increased cancer risk were older age at SLE diagnosis and being male. The analyses also confirmed that older age was a risk factor for breast cancer (aHR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), while use of antimalarial drugs was associated with a lower risk of both breast (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.90) and nonmelanoma skin (aHR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.95) cancers. For lung cancer, the highest risk factor was smoking 15 or more cigarettes a day (aHR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.43-30.9); for hematologic cancers, it was being in the top quartile of SLE disease activity (aHR, 7.14; 95% CI, 1.13-45.3).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the small number of cancers overall and purposefully not comparing cancer risk in SLE patients with risk in the general population. Although their methods – “physicians recording events at annual visits, confirmed by review of charts” – were recognized as very suitable for the current analysis, they noted that a broader comparison would “potentially be problematic due to differential misclassification error” in cancer registry data.

Two of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. No other potential conflicts were reported.

SOURCE: Bernatsky S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1002/acr.24425.

A new study has quantified cancer risk factors in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, including smoking and the use of certain medications.

“As expected, older age was associated with cancer overall, as well as with the most common cancer subtypes,” wrote Sasha Bernatsky, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To determine the risk of cancer in people with clinically confirmed incident systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the researchers analyzed data from 1,668 newly diagnosed lupus patients with at least one follow-up visit. All patients were enrolled in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort from across 33 different centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. A total of 89% (n = 1,480) were women, and 49% (n = 824) were white. The average follow-up period was 9 years.

Of the 1,668 SLE patients, 65 developed some type of cancer. The cancers included 15 breast;, 10 nonmelanoma skin; 7 lung; 6 hematologic, 6 prostate; 5 melanoma; 3 cervical; 3 renal; 2 gastric; 2 head and neck; 2 thyroid; and 1 rectal, sarcoma, thymoma, or uterine. No patient had more than one type, and the mean age of the cancer patients at time of SLE diagnosis was 45.6 (standard deviation, 14.5).

Almost half of the 65 cancers occurred in past or current smokers, including all of the lung cancers, while only 33% of patients without cancers smoked prior to baseline. After univariate analysis, characteristics associated with a higher risk of all cancers included older age at SLE diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.06), White race/ethnicity (aHR 1.34; 95% CI, 0.76-2.37), and smoking (aHR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.73-2.01).

After multivariate analysis, the two characteristics most associated with increased cancer risk were older age at SLE diagnosis and being male. The analyses also confirmed that older age was a risk factor for breast cancer (aHR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), while use of antimalarial drugs was associated with a lower risk of both breast (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.90) and nonmelanoma skin (aHR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.95) cancers. For lung cancer, the highest risk factor was smoking 15 or more cigarettes a day (aHR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.43-30.9); for hematologic cancers, it was being in the top quartile of SLE disease activity (aHR, 7.14; 95% CI, 1.13-45.3).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the small number of cancers overall and purposefully not comparing cancer risk in SLE patients with risk in the general population. Although their methods – “physicians recording events at annual visits, confirmed by review of charts” – were recognized as very suitable for the current analysis, they noted that a broader comparison would “potentially be problematic due to differential misclassification error” in cancer registry data.

Two of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. No other potential conflicts were reported.

SOURCE: Bernatsky S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1002/acr.24425.

A new study has quantified cancer risk factors in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, including smoking and the use of certain medications.

“As expected, older age was associated with cancer overall, as well as with the most common cancer subtypes,” wrote Sasha Bernatsky, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To determine the risk of cancer in people with clinically confirmed incident systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the researchers analyzed data from 1,668 newly diagnosed lupus patients with at least one follow-up visit. All patients were enrolled in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort from across 33 different centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. A total of 89% (n = 1,480) were women, and 49% (n = 824) were white. The average follow-up period was 9 years.

Of the 1,668 SLE patients, 65 developed some type of cancer. The cancers included 15 breast;, 10 nonmelanoma skin; 7 lung; 6 hematologic, 6 prostate; 5 melanoma; 3 cervical; 3 renal; 2 gastric; 2 head and neck; 2 thyroid; and 1 rectal, sarcoma, thymoma, or uterine. No patient had more than one type, and the mean age of the cancer patients at time of SLE diagnosis was 45.6 (standard deviation, 14.5).

Almost half of the 65 cancers occurred in past or current smokers, including all of the lung cancers, while only 33% of patients without cancers smoked prior to baseline. After univariate analysis, characteristics associated with a higher risk of all cancers included older age at SLE diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.06), White race/ethnicity (aHR 1.34; 95% CI, 0.76-2.37), and smoking (aHR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.73-2.01).

After multivariate analysis, the two characteristics most associated with increased cancer risk were older age at SLE diagnosis and being male. The analyses also confirmed that older age was a risk factor for breast cancer (aHR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), while use of antimalarial drugs was associated with a lower risk of both breast (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.90) and nonmelanoma skin (aHR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.95) cancers. For lung cancer, the highest risk factor was smoking 15 or more cigarettes a day (aHR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.43-30.9); for hematologic cancers, it was being in the top quartile of SLE disease activity (aHR, 7.14; 95% CI, 1.13-45.3).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the small number of cancers overall and purposefully not comparing cancer risk in SLE patients with risk in the general population. Although their methods – “physicians recording events at annual visits, confirmed by review of charts” – were recognized as very suitable for the current analysis, they noted that a broader comparison would “potentially be problematic due to differential misclassification error” in cancer registry data.

Two of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. No other potential conflicts were reported.

SOURCE: Bernatsky S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1002/acr.24425.