Oncology

Neuropathic pain in individuals with cancer remains a challenging clinical problem that requires advanced pharmacologic skills and a clear understanding of the molecular mechanisms that drive it.

At the 32nd Annual Congress of the Italian Society of Palliative Care, 3 experts outlined an updated framework that begins with basic biology and leads to the most appropriate therapeutic choice.
 

Fibre Reprogramming

Diego Maria Michele Fornasari, professor of pharmacology and director of the Postgraduate School of Specialization in Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology at the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, outlined how a healthy nerve fibre becomes chronically hyperexcitable.

“The pathogenic mechanisms of pain, even though we experience hundreds of different pains, can be counted on the fingers of one hand,” he said.

In oncology, nerve injury caused by tumour compression, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy initiates a molecular cascade that reshapes the nerve fibre.

“The injured area is reprogrammed because the neuron attempts to regenerate, and to regenerate it must express proteins seen during embryonic life,” Fornasari said.

This process leads to the appearance of embryonic sodium channels (particularly Nav1.3), which impart abnormally high electrical activity to neurones.

The second mechanism involves the loss of a protective physiologic feature, namely, intermittent failure of signal conduction. Under normal conditions, occasional conduction failures reduce pain intensity. In neuropathic pain, overexpression of hyperpolarisation–activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channels, the same channels that govern sinoatrial node automaticity, makes the neuron hyperexcitable and unable to modulate transmission. The result is that “all stimuli reach the spinal cord and the central nervous system.”

Fornasari illustrated the concerns regarding pain in bone metastases. “The tumour cell is an intelligent cell, capable of producing substances that can interfere with nociceptive mechanisms,” he said.

He also highlighted the mechanisms of pain in patients with bone metastases. Prostate cancer cells that metastasised to the bone that produce tumour cells produce large amounts of nerve growth factor, which does not promote growth in adult neurones but causes hypertrophy and sprouting of nerve fibres. “Each of these ‘spikes’ is actually a neuropathic lesion of the fibre,” Fornasari explained, clarifying how this mechanism contributes to the often-devastating intensity of pain from bone metastases.
 

Diagnostic Precision

Francesca Dina Ricchini, oncologist and palliative care specialist working in the Palliative Care Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Milan, Italy, addressed the translation of molecular knowledge into clinical diagnosis. “It is very important to be able to translate these concepts into diagnostic tools,” she said.

Neuropathic involvement affects approximately 40% of individuals with cancer, with 20% presenting with pure neuropathic pain and another 20% with mixed pain.

Approximately 75% of cases are related to the disease itself, and the remainder are related to oncologic treatments. Despite its prevalence, neuropathic pain remains underdiagnosed, contributing to suboptimal analgesia and an impaired quality of life.

Screening tools such as PainDETECT, DN4, and the LANSS scale can support assessment, but Ricchini cautioned that “they are tools that can be used as aids but do not make a diagnosis on their own and have not been validated in oncology patients.”

She noted that quantitative sensory testing (QST) complements clinical judgement by quantifying sensory thresholds for thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli, aiding in the identification of neuropathic pain mechanisms, particularly in oncology settings. QST can complement clinical judgement and diagnostic algorithms developed by the International Association for the Study of Pain to help clinicians systematically identify neuropathic components.

“The key is to start from symptoms, what the patient tells us,” Ricchini added.

However, bedside assessments remain essential. Simple tool needles, cotton, and the clinician’s thumb allow the evaluation of hyperalgesia, allodynia, and other neuropathic features of the affected area. With careful history taking and physical examination, clinicians can often reach an accurate diagnosis without complex testing.
 

Opioid Use

Sebastiano Mercadante, director of the Anesthesia & Intensive Care and Pain Relief and Supportive Care Unit in La Maddalena Cancer Center Palermo at the University of Palermo in Palermo, Italy, discussed opioid therapy in neuropathic pain. “Responsiveness to opioid drugs varies from patient to patient,” he said.

Opioids develop tolerance and have a ceiling effect that is driven by adverse events. Mercadante emphasised the need to “optimise their use” by staying within the therapeutic window where the benefits outweigh the harm.

Responsiveness depends on genetic polymorphisms affecting receptors and metabolism, pain patterns, age, sex, and psychological distress. “Those with the worst response are patients with significant psychological distress,” he noted.

The opioid escalation index helps to stratify patients. Slow escalation predicts a better prognosis, whereas rapid escalation should prompt specialist involvement and evaluation of factors such as delirium, anxiety, and depression in patients.
 

Drug Strategies

Switching opioids can be helpful when they become less effective. Mercadante explained that switching opioids “can facilitate receptor internalisation, excluding from continuous stimulation,” allowing “receptor refreshing” and allowing an overstimulated system to be cleared and restoring analgesia. Switching to methadone, when conducted by experienced clinicians, often yields substantial benefits for patients.

Fornasari clarified the mechanisms of action of gabapentinoids, which act on the alpha-2-delta subunit of calcium channels by restoring normal channel numbers rather than by closing them. This distinction is important because it is a slow mechanism that requires approximately 2 weeks for full effect, which is crucial information for clinicians who often discontinue treatment prematurely after a few days of treatment.

Antidepressants, including amitriptyline and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, strengthen descending inhibitory pathways by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline levels.

Fornasari also mentioned desvenlafaxine, the active metabolite of venlafaxine, which “has greater activity on descending noradrenergic pathways” and could be particularly useful when the predominant component is noradrenergic.
 

Topical Options

Capsaicin is an option for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, the expert explained, is related to the overexpression of transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1, also known as the capsaicin receptor. Topical capsaicin abnormally stimulates these receptors, causing a massive influx of calcium that “defunctionalises the fibre” for periods ranging from a week to 2 months.
 

Clinical Takeaways

Therefore, neuropathic pain, particularly in patients with cancer, requires a multimodal approach that begins with an understanding of the molecular mechanisms to develop personalised treatment options. As Fornasari concluded, “Often, a lack of knowledge of a drug’s mechanism of action leads to its inappropriate, and ultimately ineffective, use.” The challenge for clinicians is to translate this knowledge into tangible improvements for patients, remembering that each patient is unique and requires personalised care that goes beyond standardised protocols.

Clinicians aim to translate these insights into meaningful relief, recognising that each patient requires tailored care.
 

Practical Guidance

• Accurate diagnosis: Screening tools should only be used as support, and decisions should be on the basis of a detailed history and physical examination. In individuals with cancer, the interview always began with the patient’s account.
• Recognising negative prognostic factors: Neuropathic pain, incident pain, psychological distress, delirium, and unrealistic expectations indicate a more difficult course and require a more intensive approach.
• Opioids should be used wisely: Dose escalation should be monitored, rotation should be considered when needed, and psychological factors should be assessed throughout care. As experts have noted, clinicians should try at least 2 or 3 opioids and at least 2 routes of administration before considering invasive procedures.
• Integrating adjuvant medicines early: Gabapentin and other antidepressants are not third-line treatments for individuals with cancer. Adequately dosed for at least 2 weeks to allow therapeutic benefit.
• Consider topical options: In localised peripheral neuropathies, capsaicin can be a valid addition to treatment.
• Use of non-opioid medicines: Some individuals respond exceptionally well to anti-inflammatory agents, with effects that can match those of high morphine doses.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, part of the this news organization Professional Network.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuropathic pain in individuals with cancer remains a challenging clinical problem that requires advanced pharmacologic skills and a clear understanding of the molecular mechanisms that drive it.

At the 32nd Annual Congress of the Italian Society of Palliative Care, 3 experts outlined an updated framework that begins with basic biology and leads to the most appropriate therapeutic choice.
 

Fibre Reprogramming

Diego Maria Michele Fornasari, professor of pharmacology and director of the Postgraduate School of Specialization in Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology at the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, outlined how a healthy nerve fibre becomes chronically hyperexcitable.

“The pathogenic mechanisms of pain, even though we experience hundreds of different pains, can be counted on the fingers of one hand,” he said.

In oncology, nerve injury caused by tumour compression, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy initiates a molecular cascade that reshapes the nerve fibre.

“The injured area is reprogrammed because the neuron attempts to regenerate, and to regenerate it must express proteins seen during embryonic life,” Fornasari said.

This process leads to the appearance of embryonic sodium channels (particularly Nav1.3), which impart abnormally high electrical activity to neurones.

The second mechanism involves the loss of a protective physiologic feature, namely, intermittent failure of signal conduction. Under normal conditions, occasional conduction failures reduce pain intensity. In neuropathic pain, overexpression of hyperpolarisation–activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channels, the same channels that govern sinoatrial node automaticity, makes the neuron hyperexcitable and unable to modulate transmission. The result is that “all stimuli reach the spinal cord and the central nervous system.”

Fornasari illustrated the concerns regarding pain in bone metastases. “The tumour cell is an intelligent cell, capable of producing substances that can interfere with nociceptive mechanisms,” he said.

He also highlighted the mechanisms of pain in patients with bone metastases. Prostate cancer cells that metastasised to the bone that produce tumour cells produce large amounts of nerve growth factor, which does not promote growth in adult neurones but causes hypertrophy and sprouting of nerve fibres. “Each of these ‘spikes’ is actually a neuropathic lesion of the fibre,” Fornasari explained, clarifying how this mechanism contributes to the often-devastating intensity of pain from bone metastases.
 

Diagnostic Precision

Francesca Dina Ricchini, oncologist and palliative care specialist working in the Palliative Care Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Milan, Italy, addressed the translation of molecular knowledge into clinical diagnosis. “It is very important to be able to translate these concepts into diagnostic tools,” she said.

Neuropathic involvement affects approximately 40% of individuals with cancer, with 20% presenting with pure neuropathic pain and another 20% with mixed pain.

Approximately 75% of cases are related to the disease itself, and the remainder are related to oncologic treatments. Despite its prevalence, neuropathic pain remains underdiagnosed, contributing to suboptimal analgesia and an impaired quality of life.

Screening tools such as PainDETECT, DN4, and the LANSS scale can support assessment, but Ricchini cautioned that “they are tools that can be used as aids but do not make a diagnosis on their own and have not been validated in oncology patients.”

She noted that quantitative sensory testing (QST) complements clinical judgement by quantifying sensory thresholds for thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli, aiding in the identification of neuropathic pain mechanisms, particularly in oncology settings. QST can complement clinical judgement and diagnostic algorithms developed by the International Association for the Study of Pain to help clinicians systematically identify neuropathic components.

“The key is to start from symptoms, what the patient tells us,” Ricchini added.

However, bedside assessments remain essential. Simple tool needles, cotton, and the clinician’s thumb allow the evaluation of hyperalgesia, allodynia, and other neuropathic features of the affected area. With careful history taking and physical examination, clinicians can often reach an accurate diagnosis without complex testing.
 

Opioid Use

Sebastiano Mercadante, director of the Anesthesia & Intensive Care and Pain Relief and Supportive Care Unit in La Maddalena Cancer Center Palermo at the University of Palermo in Palermo, Italy, discussed opioid therapy in neuropathic pain. “Responsiveness to opioid drugs varies from patient to patient,” he said.

Opioids develop tolerance and have a ceiling effect that is driven by adverse events. Mercadante emphasised the need to “optimise their use” by staying within the therapeutic window where the benefits outweigh the harm.

Responsiveness depends on genetic polymorphisms affecting receptors and metabolism, pain patterns, age, sex, and psychological distress. “Those with the worst response are patients with significant psychological distress,” he noted.

The opioid escalation index helps to stratify patients. Slow escalation predicts a better prognosis, whereas rapid escalation should prompt specialist involvement and evaluation of factors such as delirium, anxiety, and depression in patients.
 

Drug Strategies

Switching opioids can be helpful when they become less effective. Mercadante explained that switching opioids “can facilitate receptor internalisation, excluding from continuous stimulation,” allowing “receptor refreshing” and allowing an overstimulated system to be cleared and restoring analgesia. Switching to methadone, when conducted by experienced clinicians, often yields substantial benefits for patients.

Fornasari clarified the mechanisms of action of gabapentinoids, which act on the alpha-2-delta subunit of calcium channels by restoring normal channel numbers rather than by closing them. This distinction is important because it is a slow mechanism that requires approximately 2 weeks for full effect, which is crucial information for clinicians who often discontinue treatment prematurely after a few days of treatment.

Antidepressants, including amitriptyline and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, strengthen descending inhibitory pathways by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline levels.

Fornasari also mentioned desvenlafaxine, the active metabolite of venlafaxine, which “has greater activity on descending noradrenergic pathways” and could be particularly useful when the predominant component is noradrenergic.
 

Topical Options

Capsaicin is an option for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, the expert explained, is related to the overexpression of transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1, also known as the capsaicin receptor. Topical capsaicin abnormally stimulates these receptors, causing a massive influx of calcium that “defunctionalises the fibre” for periods ranging from a week to 2 months.
 

Clinical Takeaways

Therefore, neuropathic pain, particularly in patients with cancer, requires a multimodal approach that begins with an understanding of the molecular mechanisms to develop personalised treatment options. As Fornasari concluded, “Often, a lack of knowledge of a drug’s mechanism of action leads to its inappropriate, and ultimately ineffective, use.” The challenge for clinicians is to translate this knowledge into tangible improvements for patients, remembering that each patient is unique and requires personalised care that goes beyond standardised protocols.

Clinicians aim to translate these insights into meaningful relief, recognising that each patient requires tailored care.
 

Practical Guidance

• Accurate diagnosis: Screening tools should only be used as support, and decisions should be on the basis of a detailed history and physical examination. In individuals with cancer, the interview always began with the patient’s account.
• Recognising negative prognostic factors: Neuropathic pain, incident pain, psychological distress, delirium, and unrealistic expectations indicate a more difficult course and require a more intensive approach.
• Opioids should be used wisely: Dose escalation should be monitored, rotation should be considered when needed, and psychological factors should be assessed throughout care. As experts have noted, clinicians should try at least 2 or 3 opioids and at least 2 routes of administration before considering invasive procedures.
• Integrating adjuvant medicines early: Gabapentin and other antidepressants are not third-line treatments for individuals with cancer. Adequately dosed for at least 2 weeks to allow therapeutic benefit.
• Consider topical options: In localised peripheral neuropathies, capsaicin can be a valid addition to treatment.
• Use of non-opioid medicines: Some individuals respond exceptionally well to anti-inflammatory agents, with effects that can match those of high morphine doses.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, part of the this news organization Professional Network.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuropathic pain in individuals with cancer remains a challenging clinical problem that requires advanced pharmacologic skills and a clear understanding of the molecular mechanisms that drive it.

At the 32nd Annual Congress of the Italian Society of Palliative Care, 3 experts outlined an updated framework that begins with basic biology and leads to the most appropriate therapeutic choice.
 

Fibre Reprogramming

Diego Maria Michele Fornasari, professor of pharmacology and director of the Postgraduate School of Specialization in Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology at the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, outlined how a healthy nerve fibre becomes chronically hyperexcitable.

“The pathogenic mechanisms of pain, even though we experience hundreds of different pains, can be counted on the fingers of one hand,” he said.

In oncology, nerve injury caused by tumour compression, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy initiates a molecular cascade that reshapes the nerve fibre.

“The injured area is reprogrammed because the neuron attempts to regenerate, and to regenerate it must express proteins seen during embryonic life,” Fornasari said.

This process leads to the appearance of embryonic sodium channels (particularly Nav1.3), which impart abnormally high electrical activity to neurones.

The second mechanism involves the loss of a protective physiologic feature, namely, intermittent failure of signal conduction. Under normal conditions, occasional conduction failures reduce pain intensity. In neuropathic pain, overexpression of hyperpolarisation–activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channels, the same channels that govern sinoatrial node automaticity, makes the neuron hyperexcitable and unable to modulate transmission. The result is that “all stimuli reach the spinal cord and the central nervous system.”

Fornasari illustrated the concerns regarding pain in bone metastases. “The tumour cell is an intelligent cell, capable of producing substances that can interfere with nociceptive mechanisms,” he said.

He also highlighted the mechanisms of pain in patients with bone metastases. Prostate cancer cells that metastasised to the bone that produce tumour cells produce large amounts of nerve growth factor, which does not promote growth in adult neurones but causes hypertrophy and sprouting of nerve fibres. “Each of these ‘spikes’ is actually a neuropathic lesion of the fibre,” Fornasari explained, clarifying how this mechanism contributes to the often-devastating intensity of pain from bone metastases.
 

Diagnostic Precision

Francesca Dina Ricchini, oncologist and palliative care specialist working in the Palliative Care Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Milan, Italy, addressed the translation of molecular knowledge into clinical diagnosis. “It is very important to be able to translate these concepts into diagnostic tools,” she said.

Neuropathic involvement affects approximately 40% of individuals with cancer, with 20% presenting with pure neuropathic pain and another 20% with mixed pain.

Approximately 75% of cases are related to the disease itself, and the remainder are related to oncologic treatments. Despite its prevalence, neuropathic pain remains underdiagnosed, contributing to suboptimal analgesia and an impaired quality of life.

Screening tools such as PainDETECT, DN4, and the LANSS scale can support assessment, but Ricchini cautioned that “they are tools that can be used as aids but do not make a diagnosis on their own and have not been validated in oncology patients.”

She noted that quantitative sensory testing (QST) complements clinical judgement by quantifying sensory thresholds for thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli, aiding in the identification of neuropathic pain mechanisms, particularly in oncology settings. QST can complement clinical judgement and diagnostic algorithms developed by the International Association for the Study of Pain to help clinicians systematically identify neuropathic components.

“The key is to start from symptoms, what the patient tells us,” Ricchini added.

However, bedside assessments remain essential. Simple tool needles, cotton, and the clinician’s thumb allow the evaluation of hyperalgesia, allodynia, and other neuropathic features of the affected area. With careful history taking and physical examination, clinicians can often reach an accurate diagnosis without complex testing.
 

Opioid Use

Sebastiano Mercadante, director of the Anesthesia & Intensive Care and Pain Relief and Supportive Care Unit in La Maddalena Cancer Center Palermo at the University of Palermo in Palermo, Italy, discussed opioid therapy in neuropathic pain. “Responsiveness to opioid drugs varies from patient to patient,” he said.

Opioids develop tolerance and have a ceiling effect that is driven by adverse events. Mercadante emphasised the need to “optimise their use” by staying within the therapeutic window where the benefits outweigh the harm.

Responsiveness depends on genetic polymorphisms affecting receptors and metabolism, pain patterns, age, sex, and psychological distress. “Those with the worst response are patients with significant psychological distress,” he noted.

The opioid escalation index helps to stratify patients. Slow escalation predicts a better prognosis, whereas rapid escalation should prompt specialist involvement and evaluation of factors such as delirium, anxiety, and depression in patients.
 

Drug Strategies

Switching opioids can be helpful when they become less effective. Mercadante explained that switching opioids “can facilitate receptor internalisation, excluding from continuous stimulation,” allowing “receptor refreshing” and allowing an overstimulated system to be cleared and restoring analgesia. Switching to methadone, when conducted by experienced clinicians, often yields substantial benefits for patients.

Fornasari clarified the mechanisms of action of gabapentinoids, which act on the alpha-2-delta subunit of calcium channels by restoring normal channel numbers rather than by closing them. This distinction is important because it is a slow mechanism that requires approximately 2 weeks for full effect, which is crucial information for clinicians who often discontinue treatment prematurely after a few days of treatment.

Antidepressants, including amitriptyline and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, strengthen descending inhibitory pathways by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline levels.

Fornasari also mentioned desvenlafaxine, the active metabolite of venlafaxine, which “has greater activity on descending noradrenergic pathways” and could be particularly useful when the predominant component is noradrenergic.
 

Topical Options

Capsaicin is an option for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, the expert explained, is related to the overexpression of transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1, also known as the capsaicin receptor. Topical capsaicin abnormally stimulates these receptors, causing a massive influx of calcium that “defunctionalises the fibre” for periods ranging from a week to 2 months.
 

Clinical Takeaways

Therefore, neuropathic pain, particularly in patients with cancer, requires a multimodal approach that begins with an understanding of the molecular mechanisms to develop personalised treatment options. As Fornasari concluded, “Often, a lack of knowledge of a drug’s mechanism of action leads to its inappropriate, and ultimately ineffective, use.” The challenge for clinicians is to translate this knowledge into tangible improvements for patients, remembering that each patient is unique and requires personalised care that goes beyond standardised protocols.

Clinicians aim to translate these insights into meaningful relief, recognising that each patient requires tailored care.
 

Practical Guidance

• Accurate diagnosis: Screening tools should only be used as support, and decisions should be on the basis of a detailed history and physical examination. In individuals with cancer, the interview always began with the patient’s account.
• Recognising negative prognostic factors: Neuropathic pain, incident pain, psychological distress, delirium, and unrealistic expectations indicate a more difficult course and require a more intensive approach.
• Opioids should be used wisely: Dose escalation should be monitored, rotation should be considered when needed, and psychological factors should be assessed throughout care. As experts have noted, clinicians should try at least 2 or 3 opioids and at least 2 routes of administration before considering invasive procedures.
• Integrating adjuvant medicines early: Gabapentin and other antidepressants are not third-line treatments for individuals with cancer. Adequately dosed for at least 2 weeks to allow therapeutic benefit.
• Consider topical options: In localised peripheral neuropathies, capsaicin can be a valid addition to treatment.
• Use of non-opioid medicines: Some individuals respond exceptionally well to anti-inflammatory agents, with effects that can match those of high morphine doses.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, part of the this news organization Professional Network.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The FDA has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Bristol Myers Squibb) for relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in adults after at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso–cel) is now the only CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T–cell therapy approved for MZL. The approval marks liso-cel’s fifth indication, the most of any CD19-directed CAR T–cell therapy, BMS said in a press release. 

Prior approvals are also in the relapsed or refractory setting and include large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma.

MZL is a slow-growing subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), accounting for about 7% of all NHL cases and typically diagnosed in older adults. Prognosis is generally favorable, but in patients who relapse or become refractory, NHL can transform into diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. 
 

Basis for Approval

Liso-cel’s new approval was based on the MZL cohort of the single arm TRANSFORM FL trial, which included 66 patients in the third or later lines; 95.5% responded to the one-time treatment, with 62.1% having a complete response. Responses were durable in 90.1% of patients at 2 years, according to the BMS press release.

In terms of safety, 76% of MZL patients developed cytokine release syndrome, which was grade 3 or worse in 4.5%. Nervous system disorders included headache (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), encephalopathy (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), tremor (21%), dizziness (16%), and aphasia (10%). 

Labeling also warns of hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, prolonged cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinemia, and secondary malignancies. 
 

Cost of Treatment

One-time treatment costs $567,237.18, according to drugs.com. BMS noted liso-cel is broadly covered by commercial and government insurance programs.

M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master’s degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award–winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining this news organization. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow. Email: [email protected]

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

The FDA has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Bristol Myers Squibb) for relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in adults after at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso–cel) is now the only CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T–cell therapy approved for MZL. The approval marks liso-cel’s fifth indication, the most of any CD19-directed CAR T–cell therapy, BMS said in a press release. 

Prior approvals are also in the relapsed or refractory setting and include large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma.

MZL is a slow-growing subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), accounting for about 7% of all NHL cases and typically diagnosed in older adults. Prognosis is generally favorable, but in patients who relapse or become refractory, NHL can transform into diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. 
 

Basis for Approval

Liso-cel’s new approval was based on the MZL cohort of the single arm TRANSFORM FL trial, which included 66 patients in the third or later lines; 95.5% responded to the one-time treatment, with 62.1% having a complete response. Responses were durable in 90.1% of patients at 2 years, according to the BMS press release.

In terms of safety, 76% of MZL patients developed cytokine release syndrome, which was grade 3 or worse in 4.5%. Nervous system disorders included headache (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), encephalopathy (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), tremor (21%), dizziness (16%), and aphasia (10%). 

Labeling also warns of hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, prolonged cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinemia, and secondary malignancies. 
 

Cost of Treatment

One-time treatment costs $567,237.18, according to drugs.com. BMS noted liso-cel is broadly covered by commercial and government insurance programs.

M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master’s degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award–winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining this news organization. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow. Email: [email protected]

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

The FDA has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Bristol Myers Squibb) for relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in adults after at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso–cel) is now the only CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T–cell therapy approved for MZL. The approval marks liso-cel’s fifth indication, the most of any CD19-directed CAR T–cell therapy, BMS said in a press release. 

Prior approvals are also in the relapsed or refractory setting and include large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma.

MZL is a slow-growing subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), accounting for about 7% of all NHL cases and typically diagnosed in older adults. Prognosis is generally favorable, but in patients who relapse or become refractory, NHL can transform into diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. 
 

Basis for Approval

Liso-cel’s new approval was based on the MZL cohort of the single arm TRANSFORM FL trial, which included 66 patients in the third or later lines; 95.5% responded to the one-time treatment, with 62.1% having a complete response. Responses were durable in 90.1% of patients at 2 years, according to the BMS press release.

In terms of safety, 76% of MZL patients developed cytokine release syndrome, which was grade 3 or worse in 4.5%. Nervous system disorders included headache (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), encephalopathy (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), tremor (21%), dizziness (16%), and aphasia (10%). 

Labeling also warns of hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, prolonged cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinemia, and secondary malignancies. 
 

Cost of Treatment

One-time treatment costs $567,237.18, according to drugs.com. BMS noted liso-cel is broadly covered by commercial and government insurance programs.

M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master’s degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award–winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining this news organization. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow. Email: [email protected]

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

TOPLINE:

A novel, blood-based test developed using fragmentomic features of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) detects colorectal cancer (CRC) with a 90.4% sensitivity and shows consistent performance across stages and tumor locations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective case-control study to develop and validate a noninvasive cfDNA-based screening test for CRC.
• Adults aged 40-89 years with CRC or advanced adenomas were enrolled at a tertiary center in South Korea between 2021 and 2024.
• Blood samples were drawn after colonoscopy, but prior to treatment, in patients with CRC, advanced adenomas, and asymptomatic controls with normal colonoscopy results.
• A model was trained on fragmentonic features derived from whole genome sequencing of cfDNA from 1250 participants and validated for its diagnostic performance in the remaining 427 participants, including all with advanced adenomas.
• The primary endpoint was the sensitivity of the cfDNA test for detecting CRC. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was also calculated.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cfDNA test detected CRC with 90.4% sensitivity and an AUROC of 0.978.
• Sensitivity by CRC stage was 84.2% for stage I, 85.0% for stage II, 94.4% for stage III, 100% for stage IV.
• Advanced adenomas were detected with 58.3% sensitivity and an AUROC of 0.862.
• Among individuals with normal colonoscopy findings, the test was correctly negative 94.7% of the time.
• Diagnostic sensitivities were consistent between left- and right-sided CRC tumors, among participants aged < 60 years and ≥ 60 years, and across left- and right-sided advanced adenomas.

IN PRACTICE:

"This highlights the potential clinical utility of the test in identifying candidates for minimally invasive therapeutic approaches tool for CRC," the authors wrote. "Notably, the high sensitivity observed for early-stage CRC and the favorable sensitivity for [advanced adenoma] suggest that this cfDNA test may offer benefits not only in diagnosis but also in prognosis and ultimately in CRC prevention."

SOURCE:

This study was led by Seung Wook Hong, MD, Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea. It was published online on November 19, 2025, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The case-control design introduced spectrum bias by comparing clearly defined CRC and advanced adenomas cases with individuals who had normal colonoscopy results. The CRC prevalence of 17% to 18% was higher than that observed in true screening populations, limiting generalizability. The exclusively Korean cohort limited extrapolation to non-Asian populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from GC Genome, Yongin, South Korea. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A novel, blood-based test developed using fragmentomic features of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) detects colorectal cancer (CRC) with a 90.4% sensitivity and shows consistent performance across stages and tumor locations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective case-control study to develop and validate a noninvasive cfDNA-based screening test for CRC.
• Adults aged 40-89 years with CRC or advanced adenomas were enrolled at a tertiary center in South Korea between 2021 and 2024.
• Blood samples were drawn after colonoscopy, but prior to treatment, in patients with CRC, advanced adenomas, and asymptomatic controls with normal colonoscopy results.
• A model was trained on fragmentonic features derived from whole genome sequencing of cfDNA from 1250 participants and validated for its diagnostic performance in the remaining 427 participants, including all with advanced adenomas.
• The primary endpoint was the sensitivity of the cfDNA test for detecting CRC. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was also calculated.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cfDNA test detected CRC with 90.4% sensitivity and an AUROC of 0.978.
• Sensitivity by CRC stage was 84.2% for stage I, 85.0% for stage II, 94.4% for stage III, 100% for stage IV.
• Advanced adenomas were detected with 58.3% sensitivity and an AUROC of 0.862.
• Among individuals with normal colonoscopy findings, the test was correctly negative 94.7% of the time.
• Diagnostic sensitivities were consistent between left- and right-sided CRC tumors, among participants aged < 60 years and ≥ 60 years, and across left- and right-sided advanced adenomas.

IN PRACTICE:

"This highlights the potential clinical utility of the test in identifying candidates for minimally invasive therapeutic approaches tool for CRC," the authors wrote. "Notably, the high sensitivity observed for early-stage CRC and the favorable sensitivity for [advanced adenoma] suggest that this cfDNA test may offer benefits not only in diagnosis but also in prognosis and ultimately in CRC prevention."

SOURCE:

This study was led by Seung Wook Hong, MD, Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea. It was published online on November 19, 2025, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The case-control design introduced spectrum bias by comparing clearly defined CRC and advanced adenomas cases with individuals who had normal colonoscopy results. The CRC prevalence of 17% to 18% was higher than that observed in true screening populations, limiting generalizability. The exclusively Korean cohort limited extrapolation to non-Asian populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from GC Genome, Yongin, South Korea. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A novel, blood-based test developed using fragmentomic features of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) detects colorectal cancer (CRC) with a 90.4% sensitivity and shows consistent performance across stages and tumor locations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective case-control study to develop and validate a noninvasive cfDNA-based screening test for CRC.
• Adults aged 40-89 years with CRC or advanced adenomas were enrolled at a tertiary center in South Korea between 2021 and 2024.
• Blood samples were drawn after colonoscopy, but prior to treatment, in patients with CRC, advanced adenomas, and asymptomatic controls with normal colonoscopy results.
• A model was trained on fragmentonic features derived from whole genome sequencing of cfDNA from 1250 participants and validated for its diagnostic performance in the remaining 427 participants, including all with advanced adenomas.
• The primary endpoint was the sensitivity of the cfDNA test for detecting CRC. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was also calculated.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cfDNA test detected CRC with 90.4% sensitivity and an AUROC of 0.978.
• Sensitivity by CRC stage was 84.2% for stage I, 85.0% for stage II, 94.4% for stage III, 100% for stage IV.
• Advanced adenomas were detected with 58.3% sensitivity and an AUROC of 0.862.
• Among individuals with normal colonoscopy findings, the test was correctly negative 94.7% of the time.
• Diagnostic sensitivities were consistent between left- and right-sided CRC tumors, among participants aged < 60 years and ≥ 60 years, and across left- and right-sided advanced adenomas.

IN PRACTICE:

"This highlights the potential clinical utility of the test in identifying candidates for minimally invasive therapeutic approaches tool for CRC," the authors wrote. "Notably, the high sensitivity observed for early-stage CRC and the favorable sensitivity for [advanced adenoma] suggest that this cfDNA test may offer benefits not only in diagnosis but also in prognosis and ultimately in CRC prevention."

SOURCE:

This study was led by Seung Wook Hong, MD, Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea. It was published online on November 19, 2025, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The case-control design introduced spectrum bias by comparing clearly defined CRC and advanced adenomas cases with individuals who had normal colonoscopy results. The CRC prevalence of 17% to 18% was higher than that observed in true screening populations, limiting generalizability. The exclusively Korean cohort limited extrapolation to non-Asian populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from GC Genome, Yongin, South Korea. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved tisotumab vedotin (Genmab AS) for adults with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

The decision, made via the International Recognition Procedure, applies to patients whose disease has progressed after prior systemic therapy. It provides a new treatment option for a high-risk group with limited alternatives.

How the Treatment Works

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a tissue factor-directed human monoclonal antibody with monomethyl auristatin E, a microtubule-disrupting agent. The therapy targets tissue factor, which is overexpressed in a several solid tumours, including recurrent cervical cancer.

It is administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks.

What Trials Showed

The approval is based on evidence from multiple clinical studies demonstrating tisotumab vedotin's efficacy in previously treated patients.

In the phase 2 innovaTV 204 study, 102 patients were enrolled and 101 received at least 1 dose of tisotumab vedotin. The confirmed objective response rate was 24%, including seven complete responses and 17 partial responses, demonstrating clinically meaningful activity in a heavily pretreated population.

Further evidence came from the phase 3 innovaTV-301 trial, which randomly assigned 502 patients to receive either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's-choice chemotherapy.

Median overall survival was 11.5 months with the new therapy compared with 9.5 months in the chemotherapy arm, translating to roughly a 30% reduction in the risk for death. The confirmed objective response rate was also significantly higher with tisotumab vedotin—17.8% vs 5.2%—underscoring its advantage over standard treatment options.

Safety and Tolerability

Ocular toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the most notable adverse reactions.

Common treatment-related events in the phase 2 study included alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea, conjunctivitis (26%), and fatigue (26%).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in about 28% of patients. Clinicians should be alert to conjunctivitis and keratitis as well as sensory neuropathic symptoms (numbness, tingling, or a burning sensation in the hands and feet).

Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the MHRA, said that patient safety is the agency's "top priority." "We will continue to monitor its safety closely as it becomes more widely used," he added.

The Summary of Product Characteristics and Patient Information Leaflets will be published on the MHRA website within 7 days of approval.

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

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved tisotumab vedotin (Genmab AS) for adults with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

The decision, made via the International Recognition Procedure, applies to patients whose disease has progressed after prior systemic therapy. It provides a new treatment option for a high-risk group with limited alternatives.

How the Treatment Works

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a tissue factor-directed human monoclonal antibody with monomethyl auristatin E, a microtubule-disrupting agent. The therapy targets tissue factor, which is overexpressed in a several solid tumours, including recurrent cervical cancer.

It is administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks.

What Trials Showed

The approval is based on evidence from multiple clinical studies demonstrating tisotumab vedotin's efficacy in previously treated patients.

In the phase 2 innovaTV 204 study, 102 patients were enrolled and 101 received at least 1 dose of tisotumab vedotin. The confirmed objective response rate was 24%, including seven complete responses and 17 partial responses, demonstrating clinically meaningful activity in a heavily pretreated population.

Further evidence came from the phase 3 innovaTV-301 trial, which randomly assigned 502 patients to receive either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's-choice chemotherapy.

Median overall survival was 11.5 months with the new therapy compared with 9.5 months in the chemotherapy arm, translating to roughly a 30% reduction in the risk for death. The confirmed objective response rate was also significantly higher with tisotumab vedotin—17.8% vs 5.2%—underscoring its advantage over standard treatment options.

Safety and Tolerability

Ocular toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the most notable adverse reactions.

Common treatment-related events in the phase 2 study included alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea, conjunctivitis (26%), and fatigue (26%).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in about 28% of patients. Clinicians should be alert to conjunctivitis and keratitis as well as sensory neuropathic symptoms (numbness, tingling, or a burning sensation in the hands and feet).

Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the MHRA, said that patient safety is the agency's "top priority." "We will continue to monitor its safety closely as it becomes more widely used," he added.

The Summary of Product Characteristics and Patient Information Leaflets will be published on the MHRA website within 7 days of approval.

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

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved tisotumab vedotin (Genmab AS) for adults with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

The decision, made via the International Recognition Procedure, applies to patients whose disease has progressed after prior systemic therapy. It provides a new treatment option for a high-risk group with limited alternatives.

How the Treatment Works

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a tissue factor-directed human monoclonal antibody with monomethyl auristatin E, a microtubule-disrupting agent. The therapy targets tissue factor, which is overexpressed in a several solid tumours, including recurrent cervical cancer.

It is administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks.

What Trials Showed

The approval is based on evidence from multiple clinical studies demonstrating tisotumab vedotin's efficacy in previously treated patients.

In the phase 2 innovaTV 204 study, 102 patients were enrolled and 101 received at least 1 dose of tisotumab vedotin. The confirmed objective response rate was 24%, including seven complete responses and 17 partial responses, demonstrating clinically meaningful activity in a heavily pretreated population.

Further evidence came from the phase 3 innovaTV-301 trial, which randomly assigned 502 patients to receive either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's-choice chemotherapy.

Median overall survival was 11.5 months with the new therapy compared with 9.5 months in the chemotherapy arm, translating to roughly a 30% reduction in the risk for death. The confirmed objective response rate was also significantly higher with tisotumab vedotin—17.8% vs 5.2%—underscoring its advantage over standard treatment options.

Safety and Tolerability

Ocular toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the most notable adverse reactions.

Common treatment-related events in the phase 2 study included alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea, conjunctivitis (26%), and fatigue (26%).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in about 28% of patients. Clinicians should be alert to conjunctivitis and keratitis as well as sensory neuropathic symptoms (numbness, tingling, or a burning sensation in the hands and feet).

Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the MHRA, said that patient safety is the agency's "top priority." "We will continue to monitor its safety closely as it becomes more widely used," he added.

The Summary of Product Characteristics and Patient Information Leaflets will be published on the MHRA website within 7 days of approval.

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

TOPLINE: 

Electronic health records patient portal signup rates were lower among vulnerable oncology patients at 64%, compared with 87% in nonvulnerable patients. Once adopted, both groups showed comparable meaningful use patterns. Non-English language emerged as a significant barrier to initial portal signup.

METHODOLOGY:

• Portal usage disparities persist across age, race, ethnicity, and health literacy groups, particularly at the initial signup stage.
• Oral anticancer medications represent a new frontier in cancer therapy, offering convenience but requiring high medication adherence and vigilant self-monitoring of symptoms.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of 280 patients who had recently started taking an oral anticancer medication at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, between October 2022 and March 2024.
• Vulnerability criteria included having an age ≥ 75 years, a non-English language preference, or subsidized insurance (Medicaid only or Medicare with Medicaid as secondary insurance).
• Analysis defined active portal use as having at least one message, while meaningful use was characterized by patient-provider bidirectional messaging.
• Portal messaging proxy use was determined through message content screening, particularly when non-English speaking patients sent messages in English or when message content indicated proxy use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the study population, 56% met vulnerability criteria, with 20% aged at least 75 years, 26% having a non-English language, and 30% having subsidized insurance.
• Non-English language was associated with lower portal signup rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.49; P < .0001), whereas age and insurance status showed no significant association.
• Proxy messaging was utilized by 17% of vulnerable patients who signed up for the portal compared to 2.8% of nonvulnerable patients.
• Among patients who signed up for the portal, 31% used it specifically for communication about oral anticancer medications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although patient portal signup was lower among vulnerable patients, once adopted, vulnerable patients demonstrated comparable meaningful use and greater proxy engagement. Fostering patient portal adoption requires a targeted approach with patient navigation and patient proxy engagement,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yenong Cao, MD, PhD, Boston Medical Center, Boston. It was published online on November 19 in JCO Oncology Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective single-center design at Tufts Medical Center, which serves a large number of non-English, Chinese-speaking patients, potentially affecting the generalizability of findings. Additionally, formal proxy login identification was lacking in the Epic documentation during the study period, which may have led to underestimation of proxy portal use.

DISCLOSURES:

Cao reported being employed at Tufts Medical Center. Johnson Ching, PharmD, CSP, disclosed being employed at Duke University Hospital and SpeciaRx, LLC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE: 

Electronic health records patient portal signup rates were lower among vulnerable oncology patients at 64%, compared with 87% in nonvulnerable patients. Once adopted, both groups showed comparable meaningful use patterns. Non-English language emerged as a significant barrier to initial portal signup.

METHODOLOGY:

• Portal usage disparities persist across age, race, ethnicity, and health literacy groups, particularly at the initial signup stage.
• Oral anticancer medications represent a new frontier in cancer therapy, offering convenience but requiring high medication adherence and vigilant self-monitoring of symptoms.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of 280 patients who had recently started taking an oral anticancer medication at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, between October 2022 and March 2024.
• Vulnerability criteria included having an age ≥ 75 years, a non-English language preference, or subsidized insurance (Medicaid only or Medicare with Medicaid as secondary insurance).
• Analysis defined active portal use as having at least one message, while meaningful use was characterized by patient-provider bidirectional messaging.
• Portal messaging proxy use was determined through message content screening, particularly when non-English speaking patients sent messages in English or when message content indicated proxy use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the study population, 56% met vulnerability criteria, with 20% aged at least 75 years, 26% having a non-English language, and 30% having subsidized insurance.
• Non-English language was associated with lower portal signup rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.49; P < .0001), whereas age and insurance status showed no significant association.
• Proxy messaging was utilized by 17% of vulnerable patients who signed up for the portal compared to 2.8% of nonvulnerable patients.
• Among patients who signed up for the portal, 31% used it specifically for communication about oral anticancer medications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although patient portal signup was lower among vulnerable patients, once adopted, vulnerable patients demonstrated comparable meaningful use and greater proxy engagement. Fostering patient portal adoption requires a targeted approach with patient navigation and patient proxy engagement,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yenong Cao, MD, PhD, Boston Medical Center, Boston. It was published online on November 19 in JCO Oncology Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective single-center design at Tufts Medical Center, which serves a large number of non-English, Chinese-speaking patients, potentially affecting the generalizability of findings. Additionally, formal proxy login identification was lacking in the Epic documentation during the study period, which may have led to underestimation of proxy portal use.

DISCLOSURES:

Cao reported being employed at Tufts Medical Center. Johnson Ching, PharmD, CSP, disclosed being employed at Duke University Hospital and SpeciaRx, LLC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE: 

Electronic health records patient portal signup rates were lower among vulnerable oncology patients at 64%, compared with 87% in nonvulnerable patients. Once adopted, both groups showed comparable meaningful use patterns. Non-English language emerged as a significant barrier to initial portal signup.

METHODOLOGY:

• Portal usage disparities persist across age, race, ethnicity, and health literacy groups, particularly at the initial signup stage.
• Oral anticancer medications represent a new frontier in cancer therapy, offering convenience but requiring high medication adherence and vigilant self-monitoring of symptoms.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of 280 patients who had recently started taking an oral anticancer medication at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, between October 2022 and March 2024.
• Vulnerability criteria included having an age ≥ 75 years, a non-English language preference, or subsidized insurance (Medicaid only or Medicare with Medicaid as secondary insurance).
• Analysis defined active portal use as having at least one message, while meaningful use was characterized by patient-provider bidirectional messaging.
• Portal messaging proxy use was determined through message content screening, particularly when non-English speaking patients sent messages in English or when message content indicated proxy use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the study population, 56% met vulnerability criteria, with 20% aged at least 75 years, 26% having a non-English language, and 30% having subsidized insurance.
• Non-English language was associated with lower portal signup rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.49; P < .0001), whereas age and insurance status showed no significant association.
• Proxy messaging was utilized by 17% of vulnerable patients who signed up for the portal compared to 2.8% of nonvulnerable patients.
• Among patients who signed up for the portal, 31% used it specifically for communication about oral anticancer medications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although patient portal signup was lower among vulnerable patients, once adopted, vulnerable patients demonstrated comparable meaningful use and greater proxy engagement. Fostering patient portal adoption requires a targeted approach with patient navigation and patient proxy engagement,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yenong Cao, MD, PhD, Boston Medical Center, Boston. It was published online on November 19 in JCO Oncology Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective single-center design at Tufts Medical Center, which serves a large number of non-English, Chinese-speaking patients, potentially affecting the generalizability of findings. Additionally, formal proxy login identification was lacking in the Epic documentation during the study period, which may have led to underestimation of proxy portal use.

DISCLOSURES:

Cao reported being employed at Tufts Medical Center. Johnson Ching, PharmD, CSP, disclosed being employed at Duke University Hospital and SpeciaRx, LLC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

Jerome Winegarden, MD, had bad news to deliver. A patient’s cancer was progressing, and the patient would need to stop his oral cancer medication. 

That would normally mean tossing a 30-day supply of pills, said Winegarden, an oncologist with Trinity Health, a statewide health system in Michigan.

But not in this case. 

Winegarden pointed to a sign on his exam room wall from YesRx, a nonprofit cancer drug repository program, that read: “Thank you, Michiganders! Donating cancer medication and supportive medication helps patients in Michigan.”

When Winegarden suggested donating the pills to YesRx, the patient was grateful. Turning a bad situation into hope for somebody else is “very powerful for patients,” Winegarden said. “We were going to be able to do something with [the medication], not just destroy it.”

In just 2 years of operation, YesRx has accepted donations and provided oral cancer or supportive care medications worth millions of dollars to nearly 1200 patients, at no cost to them, according to a recent analysis assessing the Michigan-based program. These patients couldn’t afford their prescribed medications or required immediate access and couldn’t wait for insurance approval, the researchers reported. The donated unopened or unused medications would otherwise have been wasted.

“This program is exactly what patients need: a safe way of recycling their unused prescriptions that actually benefits others with cancer,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, associate professor at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, in a statement on YesRx.
 

Filling a Need

A growing body of research shows that patients with cancer face an increased risk for financial toxicity, given the high costs of oral cancer drugs as well as changes to insurance coverage that may require greater cost sharing by the patient. The financial burden on patients can be significant, with more than half reporting trouble affording their medications, an issue that can lead to persistent medical debt as well as gaps or delays in care that may impact patient outcomes. 

Alongside the affordability problem is one of waste. A 2023 analysis found that the mean cost of drug waste associated with dose reductions or discontinuations of oral anticancer drugs came to $4290 per patient. 

The YesRx program, however, turns that negative into a positive.

If YesRx has a relevant drug in stock, “we can get the medication into the patient’s hands within 24-to-48 hours,” said Maja Gibbons, PharmD, an oncology pharmacy specialist with Corewell Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Facilitating quick access is one key goal of the program, said YesRx co-founder and chief medical officer Emily Mackler, PharmD, who led the recent analysis. “All the things we’re trying to do are to make sure that the patient doesn’t experience those gaps that can really be critical for their outcomes,” Mackler this news organization. 

The drug repository concept has been around for decades. While there is no federal program, 29 states have general drug repository programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

One of the oldest repositories, Iowa’s SafeNetRx, which started in 2001, reports that it has given free medications worth $155 million to almost 161,000 patients. SafeNetRx also began a partnership with state cancer centers to boost oral anticancer drug donations. From 2016 to 2022, the repository donated 84,000 chemotherapy doses worth $15 million to patients in need, reported Natalie K. Heater and colleagues at Northwestern University in Health Affairs Scholar.

In addition to Iowa, four other states have cancer drug repositories: Florida, Montana, Nebraska, and Michigan.

Michigan enacted a drug repository law in 2006, but YesRx did not start until 2023. The Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Trinity Health, and the Michigan Society of Hematology and Oncology provided funding to get YesRx off the ground. YesRx, which grew from nine sites in 2023 to 105 in July 2025, helps new sites get certified as a repository by the state. 

The program accepts donations of any room-temperature oral cancer or supportive care medication that is in its original, sealed manufacturer packaging and has at least 6 months before it expires. Controlled substances are not eligible, but medications such as anticoagulants and antiemetics are. Donations are sent by overnight delivery to Trinity Pharmacy at Reichert Health. Trinity receives and inspects donations, and redispenses medications for all YesRx participants. 

Nearly 1600 people have donated oral cancer medications, valued at $28.6 million, according to the 2-year look at the program. “I am blown away by how many donations come in,” Mackler this news organization.

In the first 24 months, 1171 patients received, on average, a 1-month supply of a medication worth $18.4 million, at no cost. Slightly more than half (53%) were age 65 or older. The most common diagnoses among recipients were breast cancer (28%), leukemia (18%), lung cancer (12%), and prostate cancer (9%). 

A survey about the program revealed that recipients spanned about 90% of Michigan counties, with around 40% living in rural areas. Survey respondents highlighted the value of YesRx, with most saying it was easy to use and that they could not have provided this assistance without support from the program. 

“YesRx can kind of swoop in,” said Winegarden. When a new prescription presents an issue for a patient, Winegarden checks if YesRx has a 30-day supply of the drug. If it does, patients “can get started on their treatment while we figure out the financial piece of it.”

Gibbons connects with patients in need through oncologists and financial navigators, as well as education sessions she runs for patients starting treatment. The Corewell location in Grand Rapids also holds “YesRx Donation Days,” when patients and caregivers can drop off medications. 

In just over a year, Corewell has provided “more than half a million dollars’ worth of medication to our cancer patients,” she said. “It’s just a large relief for patients to know that this is going to be able to help someone else out,” said Gibbons. 

Many of the cancer drugs “can be challenging for patients to get rid of,” Gibbons said. YesRx “is helping make sure that these medications don’t end up in things like landfills and water systems where they should not be.”

Mackler says she has big plans for expanding access. Next on the agenda is to enlist more practices in rural areas, especially in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

“We want to be accessible to anyone in the state with cancer,” said Mackler. “We would love to be able to help other states get to this point as well.”

Winegarden and Gibbons have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Jerome Winegarden, MD, had bad news to deliver. A patient’s cancer was progressing, and the patient would need to stop his oral cancer medication. 

That would normally mean tossing a 30-day supply of pills, said Winegarden, an oncologist with Trinity Health, a statewide health system in Michigan.

But not in this case. 

Winegarden pointed to a sign on his exam room wall from YesRx, a nonprofit cancer drug repository program, that read: “Thank you, Michiganders! Donating cancer medication and supportive medication helps patients in Michigan.”

When Winegarden suggested donating the pills to YesRx, the patient was grateful. Turning a bad situation into hope for somebody else is “very powerful for patients,” Winegarden said. “We were going to be able to do something with [the medication], not just destroy it.”

In just 2 years of operation, YesRx has accepted donations and provided oral cancer or supportive care medications worth millions of dollars to nearly 1200 patients, at no cost to them, according to a recent analysis assessing the Michigan-based program. These patients couldn’t afford their prescribed medications or required immediate access and couldn’t wait for insurance approval, the researchers reported. The donated unopened or unused medications would otherwise have been wasted.

“This program is exactly what patients need: a safe way of recycling their unused prescriptions that actually benefits others with cancer,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, associate professor at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, in a statement on YesRx.
 

Filling a Need

A growing body of research shows that patients with cancer face an increased risk for financial toxicity, given the high costs of oral cancer drugs as well as changes to insurance coverage that may require greater cost sharing by the patient. The financial burden on patients can be significant, with more than half reporting trouble affording their medications, an issue that can lead to persistent medical debt as well as gaps or delays in care that may impact patient outcomes. 

Alongside the affordability problem is one of waste. A 2023 analysis found that the mean cost of drug waste associated with dose reductions or discontinuations of oral anticancer drugs came to $4290 per patient. 

The YesRx program, however, turns that negative into a positive.

If YesRx has a relevant drug in stock, “we can get the medication into the patient’s hands within 24-to-48 hours,” said Maja Gibbons, PharmD, an oncology pharmacy specialist with Corewell Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Facilitating quick access is one key goal of the program, said YesRx co-founder and chief medical officer Emily Mackler, PharmD, who led the recent analysis. “All the things we’re trying to do are to make sure that the patient doesn’t experience those gaps that can really be critical for their outcomes,” Mackler this news organization. 

The drug repository concept has been around for decades. While there is no federal program, 29 states have general drug repository programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

One of the oldest repositories, Iowa’s SafeNetRx, which started in 2001, reports that it has given free medications worth $155 million to almost 161,000 patients. SafeNetRx also began a partnership with state cancer centers to boost oral anticancer drug donations. From 2016 to 2022, the repository donated 84,000 chemotherapy doses worth $15 million to patients in need, reported Natalie K. Heater and colleagues at Northwestern University in Health Affairs Scholar.

In addition to Iowa, four other states have cancer drug repositories: Florida, Montana, Nebraska, and Michigan.

Michigan enacted a drug repository law in 2006, but YesRx did not start until 2023. The Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Trinity Health, and the Michigan Society of Hematology and Oncology provided funding to get YesRx off the ground. YesRx, which grew from nine sites in 2023 to 105 in July 2025, helps new sites get certified as a repository by the state. 

The program accepts donations of any room-temperature oral cancer or supportive care medication that is in its original, sealed manufacturer packaging and has at least 6 months before it expires. Controlled substances are not eligible, but medications such as anticoagulants and antiemetics are. Donations are sent by overnight delivery to Trinity Pharmacy at Reichert Health. Trinity receives and inspects donations, and redispenses medications for all YesRx participants. 

Nearly 1600 people have donated oral cancer medications, valued at $28.6 million, according to the 2-year look at the program. “I am blown away by how many donations come in,” Mackler this news organization.

In the first 24 months, 1171 patients received, on average, a 1-month supply of a medication worth $18.4 million, at no cost. Slightly more than half (53%) were age 65 or older. The most common diagnoses among recipients were breast cancer (28%), leukemia (18%), lung cancer (12%), and prostate cancer (9%). 

A survey about the program revealed that recipients spanned about 90% of Michigan counties, with around 40% living in rural areas. Survey respondents highlighted the value of YesRx, with most saying it was easy to use and that they could not have provided this assistance without support from the program. 

“YesRx can kind of swoop in,” said Winegarden. When a new prescription presents an issue for a patient, Winegarden checks if YesRx has a 30-day supply of the drug. If it does, patients “can get started on their treatment while we figure out the financial piece of it.”

Gibbons connects with patients in need through oncologists and financial navigators, as well as education sessions she runs for patients starting treatment. The Corewell location in Grand Rapids also holds “YesRx Donation Days,” when patients and caregivers can drop off medications. 

In just over a year, Corewell has provided “more than half a million dollars’ worth of medication to our cancer patients,” she said. “It’s just a large relief for patients to know that this is going to be able to help someone else out,” said Gibbons. 

Many of the cancer drugs “can be challenging for patients to get rid of,” Gibbons said. YesRx “is helping make sure that these medications don’t end up in things like landfills and water systems where they should not be.”

Mackler says she has big plans for expanding access. Next on the agenda is to enlist more practices in rural areas, especially in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

“We want to be accessible to anyone in the state with cancer,” said Mackler. “We would love to be able to help other states get to this point as well.”

Winegarden and Gibbons have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Jerome Winegarden, MD, had bad news to deliver. A patient’s cancer was progressing, and the patient would need to stop his oral cancer medication. 

That would normally mean tossing a 30-day supply of pills, said Winegarden, an oncologist with Trinity Health, a statewide health system in Michigan.

But not in this case. 

Winegarden pointed to a sign on his exam room wall from YesRx, a nonprofit cancer drug repository program, that read: “Thank you, Michiganders! Donating cancer medication and supportive medication helps patients in Michigan.”

When Winegarden suggested donating the pills to YesRx, the patient was grateful. Turning a bad situation into hope for somebody else is “very powerful for patients,” Winegarden said. “We were going to be able to do something with [the medication], not just destroy it.”

In just 2 years of operation, YesRx has accepted donations and provided oral cancer or supportive care medications worth millions of dollars to nearly 1200 patients, at no cost to them, according to a recent analysis assessing the Michigan-based program. These patients couldn’t afford their prescribed medications or required immediate access and couldn’t wait for insurance approval, the researchers reported. The donated unopened or unused medications would otherwise have been wasted.

“This program is exactly what patients need: a safe way of recycling their unused prescriptions that actually benefits others with cancer,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, associate professor at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, in a statement on YesRx.
 

Filling a Need

A growing body of research shows that patients with cancer face an increased risk for financial toxicity, given the high costs of oral cancer drugs as well as changes to insurance coverage that may require greater cost sharing by the patient. The financial burden on patients can be significant, with more than half reporting trouble affording their medications, an issue that can lead to persistent medical debt as well as gaps or delays in care that may impact patient outcomes. 

Alongside the affordability problem is one of waste. A 2023 analysis found that the mean cost of drug waste associated with dose reductions or discontinuations of oral anticancer drugs came to $4290 per patient. 

The YesRx program, however, turns that negative into a positive.

If YesRx has a relevant drug in stock, “we can get the medication into the patient’s hands within 24-to-48 hours,” said Maja Gibbons, PharmD, an oncology pharmacy specialist with Corewell Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Facilitating quick access is one key goal of the program, said YesRx co-founder and chief medical officer Emily Mackler, PharmD, who led the recent analysis. “All the things we’re trying to do are to make sure that the patient doesn’t experience those gaps that can really be critical for their outcomes,” Mackler this news organization. 

The drug repository concept has been around for decades. While there is no federal program, 29 states have general drug repository programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

One of the oldest repositories, Iowa’s SafeNetRx, which started in 2001, reports that it has given free medications worth $155 million to almost 161,000 patients. SafeNetRx also began a partnership with state cancer centers to boost oral anticancer drug donations. From 2016 to 2022, the repository donated 84,000 chemotherapy doses worth $15 million to patients in need, reported Natalie K. Heater and colleagues at Northwestern University in Health Affairs Scholar.

In addition to Iowa, four other states have cancer drug repositories: Florida, Montana, Nebraska, and Michigan.

Michigan enacted a drug repository law in 2006, but YesRx did not start until 2023. The Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Trinity Health, and the Michigan Society of Hematology and Oncology provided funding to get YesRx off the ground. YesRx, which grew from nine sites in 2023 to 105 in July 2025, helps new sites get certified as a repository by the state. 

The program accepts donations of any room-temperature oral cancer or supportive care medication that is in its original, sealed manufacturer packaging and has at least 6 months before it expires. Controlled substances are not eligible, but medications such as anticoagulants and antiemetics are. Donations are sent by overnight delivery to Trinity Pharmacy at Reichert Health. Trinity receives and inspects donations, and redispenses medications for all YesRx participants. 

Nearly 1600 people have donated oral cancer medications, valued at $28.6 million, according to the 2-year look at the program. “I am blown away by how many donations come in,” Mackler this news organization.

In the first 24 months, 1171 patients received, on average, a 1-month supply of a medication worth $18.4 million, at no cost. Slightly more than half (53%) were age 65 or older. The most common diagnoses among recipients were breast cancer (28%), leukemia (18%), lung cancer (12%), and prostate cancer (9%). 

A survey about the program revealed that recipients spanned about 90% of Michigan counties, with around 40% living in rural areas. Survey respondents highlighted the value of YesRx, with most saying it was easy to use and that they could not have provided this assistance without support from the program. 

“YesRx can kind of swoop in,” said Winegarden. When a new prescription presents an issue for a patient, Winegarden checks if YesRx has a 30-day supply of the drug. If it does, patients “can get started on their treatment while we figure out the financial piece of it.”

Gibbons connects with patients in need through oncologists and financial navigators, as well as education sessions she runs for patients starting treatment. The Corewell location in Grand Rapids also holds “YesRx Donation Days,” when patients and caregivers can drop off medications. 

In just over a year, Corewell has provided “more than half a million dollars’ worth of medication to our cancer patients,” she said. “It’s just a large relief for patients to know that this is going to be able to help someone else out,” said Gibbons. 

Many of the cancer drugs “can be challenging for patients to get rid of,” Gibbons said. YesRx “is helping make sure that these medications don’t end up in things like landfills and water systems where they should not be.”

Mackler says she has big plans for expanding access. Next on the agenda is to enlist more practices in rural areas, especially in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

“We want to be accessible to anyone in the state with cancer,” said Mackler. “We would love to be able to help other states get to this point as well.”

Winegarden and Gibbons have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beth Cavanaugh, 79, was starting a new medication when she ran into a modern hurdle: Her doctor’s office required all follow–up questions, even those about side effects of the drug, to go through the patient portal.

Cavanaugh said she did not know how to set up or use the system.

“I tried to explain that, but the receptionist said that was the only way to contact the doctor. I felt lost,” said Cavanaugh, a retired psychotherapist near Albany, New York.

Cavanaugh is far from alone. Many older people balk at the idea of communicating with their physicians over the internet. They may have limited digital skills, have physical challenges, or simply prefer human connection.

As medicine leans harder on electronic portals and telehealth, these patients are finding themselves shut out of their own care. Experts warn this approach deepens inequities in access to care and can worsen health outcomes.

Clinicians should “offer options for various types of communication, such as phone calls or texts, because whenever an older adult — or anyone, for that matter — is given a choice, they feel more empowered and more committed to their care,” said Susan Wehry, MD, associate clinical professor at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford, Maine.
 

Tech Support

Use of medical communication tools varies among older adults. One study in JAMA Network Open found nearly two thirds of those older than 65 years who filled out surveys via phone or internet had used a patient portal, while a little under half used telehealth, and only 44% used a medical health application.

Older patients tend to fall into two camps, said Neela Patel, MD, MPH, CMD, chief of the Division of Geriatrics and Supportive Care at the UT Health San Antonio.

Her patients “are at two extremes of the spectrum — some technologically savvy and others with limited digital literacy or limited or no access to the Internet,” Patel, who is also the vice chair of the Health Systems Innovations and Technology Committee of the American Geriatric Society, said.

Patel’s practice has dedicated staff to help patients master certain technologies. For example, a pharmacist teaches patients how to use a glucometer and a blood pressure cuff. Other staff teach them how to use smartphone apps that track blood pressure or glucose.

She usually sees patients in person before offering telehealth as an option, ensuring the person has “enough digital literacy to utilize them and that the patient can see and hear the visit.”

If technological limitations impede a telehealth appointment, clinicians can help patients navigate their computer screen. Patel recounted the story of an older woman who was unable to come to the clinic in person, so had a telehealth visit instead.

“She had trouble hearing me, so I asked her to share her screen with me. I walked her through how to do that. Then I showed her where the ‘volume’ button was located. It turns out her volume was at zero,” Patel said. “Once that was adjusted, we were able to proceed with the appointment.”

Educating older adults on how to use health technology does not have to fall upon clinicians and their staff, according to Wehry. She routinely refers her patients to community resources to help them develop digital skills.

Local libraries and community centers often offer digital education. Some retirement communities and assisted living facilities also have tech support personnel or classes available to residents.

Wehry refers some of her patients to the National Digital Equity Center which teaches older adults how to hold a telehealth visit.

Roughly 90% of Patel’s patients are signed up for the patient portal, but they may not be operating the technology, she said. She advises these patients to ask their children or caregivers for help as appropriate. 

Teaching patients to use the communication technology early on can also be helpful in other ways. If patients who have been technologically proficient start having difficulty, “it’s a clue there may be cognitive changes, and we follow up on those,” Patel said.

Additional resources to help older adults develop digital competence include Cyber Seniors, Older Adults Technology Services, AARP, AARP Find Digital Courses, Area Agencies on Aging, and Senior Navigator.
 

Human Touch

Some older adults may simply want a more traditional means of communicating with their clinician. A review of 29 papers, encompassing over 6200 adults older than 60 years, identified several domains affecting the adoption of healthcare technology, two of which were resistance to new technology and having family or friends that could help with.

Wehry said many older adults “don’t resist this technology because they’re unable to figure out how to use it. Instead, they see the technology as too impersonal.”

One study found many older adults fear technologies may end up replacing face-to-face contact.

“I’m beginning to encourage primary care providers to take a step back and refocus on the doctor-patient relationship. When communication is limited to the technological approach, it can erode trust in that relationship,” Wehry said.

The American Medical Association recommends clinicians “provide a method other than electronic communication for patients who are without technological proficiency or access.”

Some busy clinicians might be concerned phone calls will be too time-consuming, Wehry said. Patients should be informed of hours of phone availability, how much time is allotted to calls, and how many days or hours a response may take. Clinicians might also use tools that allow patients to use their cell phone to text their practice with medical questions.

Cavanaugh ended up finding technological help from a professional organizer whom she hired to help rearrange her closets.

“She’s knowledgeable and patient, and she’s helping me with the portal,” she said. “If I hadn’t serendipitously found the organizer, I’d still be struggling and unable to access proper medical care.”

Wehry and Patel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beth Cavanaugh, 79, was starting a new medication when she ran into a modern hurdle: Her doctor’s office required all follow–up questions, even those about side effects of the drug, to go through the patient portal.

Cavanaugh said she did not know how to set up or use the system.

“I tried to explain that, but the receptionist said that was the only way to contact the doctor. I felt lost,” said Cavanaugh, a retired psychotherapist near Albany, New York.

Cavanaugh is far from alone. Many older people balk at the idea of communicating with their physicians over the internet. They may have limited digital skills, have physical challenges, or simply prefer human connection.

As medicine leans harder on electronic portals and telehealth, these patients are finding themselves shut out of their own care. Experts warn this approach deepens inequities in access to care and can worsen health outcomes.

Clinicians should “offer options for various types of communication, such as phone calls or texts, because whenever an older adult — or anyone, for that matter — is given a choice, they feel more empowered and more committed to their care,” said Susan Wehry, MD, associate clinical professor at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford, Maine.
 

Tech Support

Use of medical communication tools varies among older adults. One study in JAMA Network Open found nearly two thirds of those older than 65 years who filled out surveys via phone or internet had used a patient portal, while a little under half used telehealth, and only 44% used a medical health application.

Older patients tend to fall into two camps, said Neela Patel, MD, MPH, CMD, chief of the Division of Geriatrics and Supportive Care at the UT Health San Antonio.

Her patients “are at two extremes of the spectrum — some technologically savvy and others with limited digital literacy or limited or no access to the Internet,” Patel, who is also the vice chair of the Health Systems Innovations and Technology Committee of the American Geriatric Society, said.

Patel’s practice has dedicated staff to help patients master certain technologies. For example, a pharmacist teaches patients how to use a glucometer and a blood pressure cuff. Other staff teach them how to use smartphone apps that track blood pressure or glucose.

She usually sees patients in person before offering telehealth as an option, ensuring the person has “enough digital literacy to utilize them and that the patient can see and hear the visit.”

If technological limitations impede a telehealth appointment, clinicians can help patients navigate their computer screen. Patel recounted the story of an older woman who was unable to come to the clinic in person, so had a telehealth visit instead.

“She had trouble hearing me, so I asked her to share her screen with me. I walked her through how to do that. Then I showed her where the ‘volume’ button was located. It turns out her volume was at zero,” Patel said. “Once that was adjusted, we were able to proceed with the appointment.”

Educating older adults on how to use health technology does not have to fall upon clinicians and their staff, according to Wehry. She routinely refers her patients to community resources to help them develop digital skills.

Local libraries and community centers often offer digital education. Some retirement communities and assisted living facilities also have tech support personnel or classes available to residents.

Wehry refers some of her patients to the National Digital Equity Center which teaches older adults how to hold a telehealth visit.

Roughly 90% of Patel’s patients are signed up for the patient portal, but they may not be operating the technology, she said. She advises these patients to ask their children or caregivers for help as appropriate. 

Teaching patients to use the communication technology early on can also be helpful in other ways. If patients who have been technologically proficient start having difficulty, “it’s a clue there may be cognitive changes, and we follow up on those,” Patel said.

Additional resources to help older adults develop digital competence include Cyber Seniors, Older Adults Technology Services, AARP, AARP Find Digital Courses, Area Agencies on Aging, and Senior Navigator.
 

Human Touch

Some older adults may simply want a more traditional means of communicating with their clinician. A review of 29 papers, encompassing over 6200 adults older than 60 years, identified several domains affecting the adoption of healthcare technology, two of which were resistance to new technology and having family or friends that could help with.

Wehry said many older adults “don’t resist this technology because they’re unable to figure out how to use it. Instead, they see the technology as too impersonal.”

One study found many older adults fear technologies may end up replacing face-to-face contact.

“I’m beginning to encourage primary care providers to take a step back and refocus on the doctor-patient relationship. When communication is limited to the technological approach, it can erode trust in that relationship,” Wehry said.

The American Medical Association recommends clinicians “provide a method other than electronic communication for patients who are without technological proficiency or access.”

Some busy clinicians might be concerned phone calls will be too time-consuming, Wehry said. Patients should be informed of hours of phone availability, how much time is allotted to calls, and how many days or hours a response may take. Clinicians might also use tools that allow patients to use their cell phone to text their practice with medical questions.

Cavanaugh ended up finding technological help from a professional organizer whom she hired to help rearrange her closets.

“She’s knowledgeable and patient, and she’s helping me with the portal,” she said. “If I hadn’t serendipitously found the organizer, I’d still be struggling and unable to access proper medical care.”

Wehry and Patel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beth Cavanaugh, 79, was starting a new medication when she ran into a modern hurdle: Her doctor’s office required all follow–up questions, even those about side effects of the drug, to go through the patient portal.

Cavanaugh said she did not know how to set up or use the system.

“I tried to explain that, but the receptionist said that was the only way to contact the doctor. I felt lost,” said Cavanaugh, a retired psychotherapist near Albany, New York.

Cavanaugh is far from alone. Many older people balk at the idea of communicating with their physicians over the internet. They may have limited digital skills, have physical challenges, or simply prefer human connection.

As medicine leans harder on electronic portals and telehealth, these patients are finding themselves shut out of their own care. Experts warn this approach deepens inequities in access to care and can worsen health outcomes.

Clinicians should “offer options for various types of communication, such as phone calls or texts, because whenever an older adult — or anyone, for that matter — is given a choice, they feel more empowered and more committed to their care,” said Susan Wehry, MD, associate clinical professor at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford, Maine.
 

Tech Support

Use of medical communication tools varies among older adults. One study in JAMA Network Open found nearly two thirds of those older than 65 years who filled out surveys via phone or internet had used a patient portal, while a little under half used telehealth, and only 44% used a medical health application.

Older patients tend to fall into two camps, said Neela Patel, MD, MPH, CMD, chief of the Division of Geriatrics and Supportive Care at the UT Health San Antonio.

Her patients “are at two extremes of the spectrum — some technologically savvy and others with limited digital literacy or limited or no access to the Internet,” Patel, who is also the vice chair of the Health Systems Innovations and Technology Committee of the American Geriatric Society, said.

Patel’s practice has dedicated staff to help patients master certain technologies. For example, a pharmacist teaches patients how to use a glucometer and a blood pressure cuff. Other staff teach them how to use smartphone apps that track blood pressure or glucose.

She usually sees patients in person before offering telehealth as an option, ensuring the person has “enough digital literacy to utilize them and that the patient can see and hear the visit.”

If technological limitations impede a telehealth appointment, clinicians can help patients navigate their computer screen. Patel recounted the story of an older woman who was unable to come to the clinic in person, so had a telehealth visit instead.

“She had trouble hearing me, so I asked her to share her screen with me. I walked her through how to do that. Then I showed her where the ‘volume’ button was located. It turns out her volume was at zero,” Patel said. “Once that was adjusted, we were able to proceed with the appointment.”

Educating older adults on how to use health technology does not have to fall upon clinicians and their staff, according to Wehry. She routinely refers her patients to community resources to help them develop digital skills.

Local libraries and community centers often offer digital education. Some retirement communities and assisted living facilities also have tech support personnel or classes available to residents.

Wehry refers some of her patients to the National Digital Equity Center which teaches older adults how to hold a telehealth visit.

Roughly 90% of Patel’s patients are signed up for the patient portal, but they may not be operating the technology, she said. She advises these patients to ask their children or caregivers for help as appropriate. 

Teaching patients to use the communication technology early on can also be helpful in other ways. If patients who have been technologically proficient start having difficulty, “it’s a clue there may be cognitive changes, and we follow up on those,” Patel said.

Additional resources to help older adults develop digital competence include Cyber Seniors, Older Adults Technology Services, AARP, AARP Find Digital Courses, Area Agencies on Aging, and Senior Navigator.
 

Human Touch

Some older adults may simply want a more traditional means of communicating with their clinician. A review of 29 papers, encompassing over 6200 adults older than 60 years, identified several domains affecting the adoption of healthcare technology, two of which were resistance to new technology and having family or friends that could help with.

Wehry said many older adults “don’t resist this technology because they’re unable to figure out how to use it. Instead, they see the technology as too impersonal.”

One study found many older adults fear technologies may end up replacing face-to-face contact.

“I’m beginning to encourage primary care providers to take a step back and refocus on the doctor-patient relationship. When communication is limited to the technological approach, it can erode trust in that relationship,” Wehry said.

The American Medical Association recommends clinicians “provide a method other than electronic communication for patients who are without technological proficiency or access.”

Some busy clinicians might be concerned phone calls will be too time-consuming, Wehry said. Patients should be informed of hours of phone availability, how much time is allotted to calls, and how many days or hours a response may take. Clinicians might also use tools that allow patients to use their cell phone to text their practice with medical questions.

Cavanaugh ended up finding technological help from a professional organizer whom she hired to help rearrange her closets.

“She’s knowledgeable and patient, and she’s helping me with the portal,” she said. “If I hadn’t serendipitously found the organizer, I’d still be struggling and unable to access proper medical care.”

Wehry and Patel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The War on Cancer, declared by President Richard Nixon some 50 years ago, has been canceled during the second Trump administration in 2025 — so saith The New York Times Sunday magazine cover story on September 14, 2025. This war seems now to be best described as "The War on Cancer Research."

To our horror and disbelief, we've witnessed the slow but persistent drift of much of the United States citizenry away from science and the sudden and severe movement of the US government to crush much medical research. But it is not as if we were not warned.

In August 2024, on these pages and without political bias, I urged Medscape readers to pay attention to Project 2025. A great deal of what we as a population are now experiencing was laid out as a carefully constructed plan.

What is surprising is the cruel ruthlessness of the "move fast and break things" approach, taken with little apparent concern about the resultant human tragedies (workforce and patients) and no clear care about the resulting fallout. As we've now learned, destroying something as grand as our cancer research enterprise can be accomplished very quickly. Rebuilding it is certain to be slow and difficult and perhaps can never be accomplished.

In this new anti-science, anti-research, and anti-researcher reality, what can we now do?

First and foremost, we must recognize that the war on cancer is not over. Cancer is not canceled, even if much of the US government's research effort/funding has been. Those of us in medicine and public health often speak in quantification of causes of death of our populations. As such, I'll remind Medscape readers that cancer afflicts some 20 million humans worldwide each year, killing nearly 10 million. Although two-thirds of Americans diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy are cured, cancer still kills roughly 600,000 Americans each year. Cancer has been the second most frequent cause of death of Americans for 75 years.

Being inevitable and immutable, death itself is not the enemy. We all die. Disease, disability, pain, and human suffering are the real enemies of us all. Cancer maims, pains, diabetes, and torments some 20 million humans worldwide each year. That is a huge humanitarian problem that should be recognized by individuals of all creeds and backgrounds.

With this depletion of our domestic government basic and applied cancer research program, what can we do?

1. Think globally and look to the international scientific research enterprises — relying on them, much as they have relied on us.
2. Defend the universal importance of reliable and available literature on medical science.
3. Continue to translate and apply the vast amount of available published research in clinical practice and publish the results.
4. Urge private industries to expand their research budgets into areas of study that may not produce quickly tangible positive bottom-line results.
5. Remind the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (for whom chronic diseases seem paramount) that cancer is the second leading American chronic disease by morbidity.
6. Redouble efforts of cancer prevention, especially urging the FDA to ban combustible tobacco and strive more diligently to decrease obesity.
7. Appeal to our vast philanthropic universe to increase its funding of nonprofit organizations active in the cancer investigation, diagnosis, and management space.

One such 501c3 organization is California-based Cancer Commons. (Disclosure: I named it in 2010 and serve as its editor in chief).

A commons is a space shared by a community to use for the common interest. As we originally envisioned it, a cancer commons is an open access internet location where individuals and organizations (eg, corporations, universities, government agencies, philanthropies) will voluntarily share their data to work together to defeat the common enemy of humans: cancer.

On September 8, 2025, Cancer Commons was the 15th annual Lundberg Institute Lecturer at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco. At the lecture, Cancer Commons founder (and long-term survivor of metastatic malignant melanoma), Jay Martin "Martin" Tenenbaum, PhD, spoke of the need for a cancer commons and the founder's vision. Emma Shtivelman, PhD, the long-time compassionate chief scientist, described some of the thousands of patients with advanced cancer that she has helped — all free of charge. And newly named CEO Clifford Reid, MBA, PhD, used his entrepreneurial prowess to envision an ambitious future.

Cancer Commons has always focused on patients with cancer who are beyond standards of curative care. As Cancer Commons evolves, it anticipates focusing on patients with cancer who are beyond National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. The organization intends to greatly expand its 1000 patients per year with "high touch" engagement with PhD clinical scientists to many thousands by including artificial intelligence. It plans to extend its N-of-One approach to create new knowledge — especially regarding the hundreds of drugs that are FDA-approved for use in treating cancer but have not been further assessed for the utility in actually treating patients with cancer.

The war on cancer is not over. It remains a persistent foe that causes immense disability, pain, and human suffering. With government support depleted, the burden now shifts to the private sector and philanthropic organizations, such as Cancer Commons, to serve as the new vital infrastructure in the fight for a cure. Now, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that these research endeavors are supported if the US government will not do its part.

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

The War on Cancer, declared by President Richard Nixon some 50 years ago, has been canceled during the second Trump administration in 2025 — so saith The New York Times Sunday magazine cover story on September 14, 2025. This war seems now to be best described as "The War on Cancer Research."

To our horror and disbelief, we've witnessed the slow but persistent drift of much of the United States citizenry away from science and the sudden and severe movement of the US government to crush much medical research. But it is not as if we were not warned.

In August 2024, on these pages and without political bias, I urged Medscape readers to pay attention to Project 2025. A great deal of what we as a population are now experiencing was laid out as a carefully constructed plan.

What is surprising is the cruel ruthlessness of the "move fast and break things" approach, taken with little apparent concern about the resultant human tragedies (workforce and patients) and no clear care about the resulting fallout. As we've now learned, destroying something as grand as our cancer research enterprise can be accomplished very quickly. Rebuilding it is certain to be slow and difficult and perhaps can never be accomplished.

In this new anti-science, anti-research, and anti-researcher reality, what can we now do?

First and foremost, we must recognize that the war on cancer is not over. Cancer is not canceled, even if much of the US government's research effort/funding has been. Those of us in medicine and public health often speak in quantification of causes of death of our populations. As such, I'll remind Medscape readers that cancer afflicts some 20 million humans worldwide each year, killing nearly 10 million. Although two-thirds of Americans diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy are cured, cancer still kills roughly 600,000 Americans each year. Cancer has been the second most frequent cause of death of Americans for 75 years.

Being inevitable and immutable, death itself is not the enemy. We all die. Disease, disability, pain, and human suffering are the real enemies of us all. Cancer maims, pains, diabetes, and torments some 20 million humans worldwide each year. That is a huge humanitarian problem that should be recognized by individuals of all creeds and backgrounds.

With this depletion of our domestic government basic and applied cancer research program, what can we do?

1. Think globally and look to the international scientific research enterprises — relying on them, much as they have relied on us.
2. Defend the universal importance of reliable and available literature on medical science.
3. Continue to translate and apply the vast amount of available published research in clinical practice and publish the results.
4. Urge private industries to expand their research budgets into areas of study that may not produce quickly tangible positive bottom-line results.
5. Remind the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (for whom chronic diseases seem paramount) that cancer is the second leading American chronic disease by morbidity.
6. Redouble efforts of cancer prevention, especially urging the FDA to ban combustible tobacco and strive more diligently to decrease obesity.
7. Appeal to our vast philanthropic universe to increase its funding of nonprofit organizations active in the cancer investigation, diagnosis, and management space.

One such 501c3 organization is California-based Cancer Commons. (Disclosure: I named it in 2010 and serve as its editor in chief).

A commons is a space shared by a community to use for the common interest. As we originally envisioned it, a cancer commons is an open access internet location where individuals and organizations (eg, corporations, universities, government agencies, philanthropies) will voluntarily share their data to work together to defeat the common enemy of humans: cancer.

On September 8, 2025, Cancer Commons was the 15th annual Lundberg Institute Lecturer at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco. At the lecture, Cancer Commons founder (and long-term survivor of metastatic malignant melanoma), Jay Martin "Martin" Tenenbaum, PhD, spoke of the need for a cancer commons and the founder's vision. Emma Shtivelman, PhD, the long-time compassionate chief scientist, described some of the thousands of patients with advanced cancer that she has helped — all free of charge. And newly named CEO Clifford Reid, MBA, PhD, used his entrepreneurial prowess to envision an ambitious future.

Cancer Commons has always focused on patients with cancer who are beyond standards of curative care. As Cancer Commons evolves, it anticipates focusing on patients with cancer who are beyond National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. The organization intends to greatly expand its 1000 patients per year with "high touch" engagement with PhD clinical scientists to many thousands by including artificial intelligence. It plans to extend its N-of-One approach to create new knowledge — especially regarding the hundreds of drugs that are FDA-approved for use in treating cancer but have not been further assessed for the utility in actually treating patients with cancer.

The war on cancer is not over. It remains a persistent foe that causes immense disability, pain, and human suffering. With government support depleted, the burden now shifts to the private sector and philanthropic organizations, such as Cancer Commons, to serve as the new vital infrastructure in the fight for a cure. Now, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that these research endeavors are supported if the US government will not do its part.

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

The War on Cancer, declared by President Richard Nixon some 50 years ago, has been canceled during the second Trump administration in 2025 — so saith The New York Times Sunday magazine cover story on September 14, 2025. This war seems now to be best described as "The War on Cancer Research."

To our horror and disbelief, we've witnessed the slow but persistent drift of much of the United States citizenry away from science and the sudden and severe movement of the US government to crush much medical research. But it is not as if we were not warned.

In August 2024, on these pages and without political bias, I urged Medscape readers to pay attention to Project 2025. A great deal of what we as a population are now experiencing was laid out as a carefully constructed plan.

What is surprising is the cruel ruthlessness of the "move fast and break things" approach, taken with little apparent concern about the resultant human tragedies (workforce and patients) and no clear care about the resulting fallout. As we've now learned, destroying something as grand as our cancer research enterprise can be accomplished very quickly. Rebuilding it is certain to be slow and difficult and perhaps can never be accomplished.

In this new anti-science, anti-research, and anti-researcher reality, what can we now do?

First and foremost, we must recognize that the war on cancer is not over. Cancer is not canceled, even if much of the US government's research effort/funding has been. Those of us in medicine and public health often speak in quantification of causes of death of our populations. As such, I'll remind Medscape readers that cancer afflicts some 20 million humans worldwide each year, killing nearly 10 million. Although two-thirds of Americans diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy are cured, cancer still kills roughly 600,000 Americans each year. Cancer has been the second most frequent cause of death of Americans for 75 years.

Being inevitable and immutable, death itself is not the enemy. We all die. Disease, disability, pain, and human suffering are the real enemies of us all. Cancer maims, pains, diabetes, and torments some 20 million humans worldwide each year. That is a huge humanitarian problem that should be recognized by individuals of all creeds and backgrounds.

With this depletion of our domestic government basic and applied cancer research program, what can we do?

1. Think globally and look to the international scientific research enterprises — relying on them, much as they have relied on us.
2. Defend the universal importance of reliable and available literature on medical science.
3. Continue to translate and apply the vast amount of available published research in clinical practice and publish the results.
4. Urge private industries to expand their research budgets into areas of study that may not produce quickly tangible positive bottom-line results.
5. Remind the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (for whom chronic diseases seem paramount) that cancer is the second leading American chronic disease by morbidity.
6. Redouble efforts of cancer prevention, especially urging the FDA to ban combustible tobacco and strive more diligently to decrease obesity.
7. Appeal to our vast philanthropic universe to increase its funding of nonprofit organizations active in the cancer investigation, diagnosis, and management space.

One such 501c3 organization is California-based Cancer Commons. (Disclosure: I named it in 2010 and serve as its editor in chief).

A commons is a space shared by a community to use for the common interest. As we originally envisioned it, a cancer commons is an open access internet location where individuals and organizations (eg, corporations, universities, government agencies, philanthropies) will voluntarily share their data to work together to defeat the common enemy of humans: cancer.

On September 8, 2025, Cancer Commons was the 15th annual Lundberg Institute Lecturer at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco. At the lecture, Cancer Commons founder (and long-term survivor of metastatic malignant melanoma), Jay Martin "Martin" Tenenbaum, PhD, spoke of the need for a cancer commons and the founder's vision. Emma Shtivelman, PhD, the long-time compassionate chief scientist, described some of the thousands of patients with advanced cancer that she has helped — all free of charge. And newly named CEO Clifford Reid, MBA, PhD, used his entrepreneurial prowess to envision an ambitious future.

Cancer Commons has always focused on patients with cancer who are beyond standards of curative care. As Cancer Commons evolves, it anticipates focusing on patients with cancer who are beyond National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. The organization intends to greatly expand its 1000 patients per year with "high touch" engagement with PhD clinical scientists to many thousands by including artificial intelligence. It plans to extend its N-of-One approach to create new knowledge — especially regarding the hundreds of drugs that are FDA-approved for use in treating cancer but have not been further assessed for the utility in actually treating patients with cancer.

The war on cancer is not over. It remains a persistent foe that causes immense disability, pain, and human suffering. With government support depleted, the burden now shifts to the private sector and philanthropic organizations, such as Cancer Commons, to serve as the new vital infrastructure in the fight for a cure. Now, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that these research endeavors are supported if the US government will not do its part.

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

TOPLINE: Agent Orange exposure was associated with a 26% to 71% increased risk for multiple lymphoid cancers in veterans enrolled in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veterans Program (MVP), while genetic predisposition independently raised risk by 12% to 81% across different lymphoma subtypes. A case-controlled analysis of 255,155 veterans found no significant interaction between genetic risk scores and Agent Orange exposure.

METHODOLOGY:

• A case-control study included 255,155 non-Hispanic White veterans (median age 67 years, 92.5% male) enrolled in the VA MVP with genotype and Agent Orange exposure data.

• Researchers analyzed five lymphoid malignant neoplasm subtypes: chronic lymphocytic leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and multiple myeloma diagnosed from January 1965 through June 2024.

• Agent Orange exposure was determined through self-reported survey responses, while polygenic risk scores were derived from genome-wide association studies of lymphoid malignant neoplasms.

• Analysis included adjustments for age at enrollment, sex, and the first 10 genetic principal components in logistic regression models evaluating Agent Orange exposure, polygenic risk scores, and their potential interaction.

TAKEAWAY:

• Agent Orange exposure significantly increased risk for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.84), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.53), follicular lymphoma (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.39-2.11), and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.35-1.86).

• Polygenic risk scores were independently associated with all lymphoma subtypes, with strongest associations for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.70-1.93) and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.31-1.52).

• Analysis in African American participants showed similar associations for multiple myeloma with both Agent Orange exposure (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.07) and polygenic risk scores (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.49).

• According to the researchers, no significant polygenic risk score and Agent Orange exposure interactions were observed for any lymphoma subtype.

IN PRACTICE: "Our study addressed the public health concerns surrounding Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasms, finding that both Agent Orange exposure and polygenic risk are independently associated with disease, suggesting potentially distinct and additive pathways that merit further investigation," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, Irvine and the Tibor Rubin Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, Californiaand was published online on August 13 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, while this represents the largest case-control study of Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasm risk, the power to detect interaction associations in specific subtypes might be limited. Self-reported Agent Orange exposure data may have introduced survival bias, particularly in aggressive subtypes, as patients with aggressive tumors may have died before joining the MVP. Additionally, about half of the patients were diagnosed with lymphoid malignant neoplasms before self-reporting Agent Orange exposure, potentially introducing recall bias.

DISCLOSURES: The research was supported by a Veterans Affairs Career Development Award Xueyi Teng, PhD, received grants from the George E. Hewitt Foundation for Medical Research Postdoc Fellowship during the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Agent Orange exposure was associated with a 26% to 71% increased risk for multiple lymphoid cancers in veterans enrolled in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veterans Program (MVP), while genetic predisposition independently raised risk by 12% to 81% across different lymphoma subtypes. A case-controlled analysis of 255,155 veterans found no significant interaction between genetic risk scores and Agent Orange exposure.

METHODOLOGY:

• A case-control study included 255,155 non-Hispanic White veterans (median age 67 years, 92.5% male) enrolled in the VA MVP with genotype and Agent Orange exposure data.

• Researchers analyzed five lymphoid malignant neoplasm subtypes: chronic lymphocytic leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and multiple myeloma diagnosed from January 1965 through June 2024.

• Agent Orange exposure was determined through self-reported survey responses, while polygenic risk scores were derived from genome-wide association studies of lymphoid malignant neoplasms.

• Analysis included adjustments for age at enrollment, sex, and the first 10 genetic principal components in logistic regression models evaluating Agent Orange exposure, polygenic risk scores, and their potential interaction.

TAKEAWAY:

• Agent Orange exposure significantly increased risk for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.84), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.53), follicular lymphoma (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.39-2.11), and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.35-1.86).

• Polygenic risk scores were independently associated with all lymphoma subtypes, with strongest associations for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.70-1.93) and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.31-1.52).

• Analysis in African American participants showed similar associations for multiple myeloma with both Agent Orange exposure (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.07) and polygenic risk scores (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.49).

• According to the researchers, no significant polygenic risk score and Agent Orange exposure interactions were observed for any lymphoma subtype.

IN PRACTICE: "Our study addressed the public health concerns surrounding Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasms, finding that both Agent Orange exposure and polygenic risk are independently associated with disease, suggesting potentially distinct and additive pathways that merit further investigation," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, Irvine and the Tibor Rubin Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, Californiaand was published online on August 13 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, while this represents the largest case-control study of Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasm risk, the power to detect interaction associations in specific subtypes might be limited. Self-reported Agent Orange exposure data may have introduced survival bias, particularly in aggressive subtypes, as patients with aggressive tumors may have died before joining the MVP. Additionally, about half of the patients were diagnosed with lymphoid malignant neoplasms before self-reporting Agent Orange exposure, potentially introducing recall bias.

DISCLOSURES: The research was supported by a Veterans Affairs Career Development Award Xueyi Teng, PhD, received grants from the George E. Hewitt Foundation for Medical Research Postdoc Fellowship during the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Agent Orange exposure was associated with a 26% to 71% increased risk for multiple lymphoid cancers in veterans enrolled in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veterans Program (MVP), while genetic predisposition independently raised risk by 12% to 81% across different lymphoma subtypes. A case-controlled analysis of 255,155 veterans found no significant interaction between genetic risk scores and Agent Orange exposure.

METHODOLOGY:

• A case-control study included 255,155 non-Hispanic White veterans (median age 67 years, 92.5% male) enrolled in the VA MVP with genotype and Agent Orange exposure data.

• Researchers analyzed five lymphoid malignant neoplasm subtypes: chronic lymphocytic leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and multiple myeloma diagnosed from January 1965 through June 2024.

• Agent Orange exposure was determined through self-reported survey responses, while polygenic risk scores were derived from genome-wide association studies of lymphoid malignant neoplasms.

• Analysis included adjustments for age at enrollment, sex, and the first 10 genetic principal components in logistic regression models evaluating Agent Orange exposure, polygenic risk scores, and their potential interaction.

TAKEAWAY:

• Agent Orange exposure significantly increased risk for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.84), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.53), follicular lymphoma (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.39-2.11), and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.35-1.86).

• Polygenic risk scores were independently associated with all lymphoma subtypes, with strongest associations for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.70-1.93) and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.31-1.52).

• Analysis in African American participants showed similar associations for multiple myeloma with both Agent Orange exposure (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.07) and polygenic risk scores (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.49).

• According to the researchers, no significant polygenic risk score and Agent Orange exposure interactions were observed for any lymphoma subtype.

IN PRACTICE: "Our study addressed the public health concerns surrounding Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasms, finding that both Agent Orange exposure and polygenic risk are independently associated with disease, suggesting potentially distinct and additive pathways that merit further investigation," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, Irvine and the Tibor Rubin Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, Californiaand was published online on August 13 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, while this represents the largest case-control study of Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasm risk, the power to detect interaction associations in specific subtypes might be limited. Self-reported Agent Orange exposure data may have introduced survival bias, particularly in aggressive subtypes, as patients with aggressive tumors may have died before joining the MVP. Additionally, about half of the patients were diagnosed with lymphoid malignant neoplasms before self-reporting Agent Orange exposure, potentially introducing recall bias.

DISCLOSURES: The research was supported by a Veterans Affairs Career Development Award Xueyi Teng, PhD, received grants from the George E. Hewitt Foundation for Medical Research Postdoc Fellowship during the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Abiraterone and enzalutamide showed identical survival outcomes when used as first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), according to a new study using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data. The report represents the first head-to-head clinical analysis of these commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors.

Among 1258 veterans treated with abiraterone and 311 treated with enzalutamide, median overall survival was 36.2 months for both drugs. Patients were followed for a mean of 28.7 months (abiraterone) and 30.8 months (enzalutamide), reported by Martin W. Schoen, MD, MPH, from Saint Louis University School of Medicine and the St. Louis VA Medical Center, in JAMA Network Open. 

Notably, there was no significant difference in outcomes among Black veterans, who often have poorer outcomes in prostate cancer, and in patients with cardiovascular disease.

“This is the first direct comparison of abiraterone and enzalutamide for mHSPC in a clinical practice setting,” Schoen told Federal Practitioner. “At the population level, there are no differences based on initial treatment choice.”

Abiraterone Is Preferred in the VA Due to Cost

According to Schoen, abiraterone and enzalutamide are the most commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors to treat mHSPC within the VA. A 2025 study by Schoen and colleagues found that 53.7% of veterans with mHSPC in 2022 received androgen receptor inhibitor therapy, up from 16.9% in 2017. 

“In the VA, the preference for most patients is abiraterone since it is the least expensive agent,” he said. A generic version has been available for several years.

Additionally, abiraterone “has been on the market for the longest, and therefore clinicians are familiar with its use,” Schoen said. However, “clinicians have little idea of the comparative efficacy between these 2 agents,” he added.

The authors suggest that the cost and toxicities of the medications should guide clinician decisions, Schoen said. “There is data that abiraterone may worsen diabetes, since it is given with prednisone and could increase the risk of cardiovascular events,” he said.

He added that 2 newer drugs, apalutamide and darolutamide, are also “viable options.” Chemotherapies and certain targeted drugs are also available, “but they are only used in a select group of patients.”

Outside Specialist: Diverse Study Population Is a Plus

Hematologist-oncologist Natalie Reizine, MD, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, who was not involved in the study, told Federal Practitioner that the real-world data are valuable given the limitations of clinical trial populations.

“It’s difficult to compare clinical trials because they enroll different groups of patients,” she said. And, she said, they often exclude patients with significant comorbidities. “If they have bad cardiovascular disease, for instance, or poorly controlled diabetes, they're excluded from the clinical trial. But in real life, many of our patients have other medical problems that we have to manage.”

Reizine also emphasized the significance of the study’s diverse patient population. “Black men are very underrepresented in clinical trials. Many clinical trials that lead to drug approval will have only few or no Black men at all, yet these drugs go on to be widely prescribed to all men with prostate cancer.”

Results Are ‘Reassuring’

Reizine described the overall study findings as “reassuring,” especially in light of “studies that show that abiraterone and prednisone may be associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes. This study showed that in this VA population, even for patients who had cardiovascular disease, there was not a difference in how they did.”

As for choosing between agents, she recommended considering comorbidities and potential drug-drug interactions. “One of the big reasons that you may not be able to safely prescribe enzalutamide, for instance, is if a patient is on an anticoagulant, which is incredibly common in cancer patients. Enzalutamide has more drug-drug interactions than abiraterone and prednisone.” 

Study Demographics and Findings

The study included all patients with mHSPC who initiated abiraterone or enzalutamide between July 2017 and April 2023.

Median ages were 73 (abiraterone) and 74 years (enzalutamide, P = .29). Racial distribution was similar between groups: abiraterone (68.1% White, 25.0% Black, 6.9% other/unknown) and enzalutamide (66.6% White, 27.0% Black, 6.4% other/unknown; P = .74). Ethnicity was 89.2% non-Hispanic, 4.4% Hispanic, and 6.4% unknown in the abiraterone group vs 88.4% non-Hispanic, 3.5% Hispanic, and 8.0% unknown in the enzalutamide group (P = .50).

The groups had similar rates of the most common comorbidities: diabetes (40.5% vs 46.3%, respectively, P = .07), peripheral vascular disease (40.2% vs 37.6%, respectively, P = .44), and chronic pulmonary disease (37.0% vs 40.5%, P = .29).

In an inverse probability weighting analysis with abiraterone as reference, weighted median overall survival was comparable across the entire cohort (36.2 months, P = .32), Black veterans (39.7 months, P = .90), and those with cardiovascular disease (31.5 months, P = .30).

The authors noted limitations such as the observational cohort design and data constraints. 

The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Blavatnik Family Foundation.

Schoen discloses relationships with the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Astellas, and US Department of Defense. Other authors disclose relationships with the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Pfizer, Exelixis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Merck, Seagen, Bellicum, and BMS.

Outside the submitted work. Reizine discloses relationships with the US Department of Defense, Sanofi, Exelexis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, and Tempus.

Abiraterone and enzalutamide showed identical survival outcomes when used as first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), according to a new study using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data. The report represents the first head-to-head clinical analysis of these commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors.

Among 1258 veterans treated with abiraterone and 311 treated with enzalutamide, median overall survival was 36.2 months for both drugs. Patients were followed for a mean of 28.7 months (abiraterone) and 30.8 months (enzalutamide), reported by Martin W. Schoen, MD, MPH, from Saint Louis University School of Medicine and the St. Louis VA Medical Center, in JAMA Network Open. 

Notably, there was no significant difference in outcomes among Black veterans, who often have poorer outcomes in prostate cancer, and in patients with cardiovascular disease.

“This is the first direct comparison of abiraterone and enzalutamide for mHSPC in a clinical practice setting,” Schoen told Federal Practitioner. “At the population level, there are no differences based on initial treatment choice.”

Abiraterone Is Preferred in the VA Due to Cost

According to Schoen, abiraterone and enzalutamide are the most commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors to treat mHSPC within the VA. A 2025 study by Schoen and colleagues found that 53.7% of veterans with mHSPC in 2022 received androgen receptor inhibitor therapy, up from 16.9% in 2017. 

“In the VA, the preference for most patients is abiraterone since it is the least expensive agent,” he said. A generic version has been available for several years.

Additionally, abiraterone “has been on the market for the longest, and therefore clinicians are familiar with its use,” Schoen said. However, “clinicians have little idea of the comparative efficacy between these 2 agents,” he added.

The authors suggest that the cost and toxicities of the medications should guide clinician decisions, Schoen said. “There is data that abiraterone may worsen diabetes, since it is given with prednisone and could increase the risk of cardiovascular events,” he said.

He added that 2 newer drugs, apalutamide and darolutamide, are also “viable options.” Chemotherapies and certain targeted drugs are also available, “but they are only used in a select group of patients.”

Outside Specialist: Diverse Study Population Is a Plus

Hematologist-oncologist Natalie Reizine, MD, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, who was not involved in the study, told Federal Practitioner that the real-world data are valuable given the limitations of clinical trial populations.

“It’s difficult to compare clinical trials because they enroll different groups of patients,” she said. And, she said, they often exclude patients with significant comorbidities. “If they have bad cardiovascular disease, for instance, or poorly controlled diabetes, they're excluded from the clinical trial. But in real life, many of our patients have other medical problems that we have to manage.”

Reizine also emphasized the significance of the study’s diverse patient population. “Black men are very underrepresented in clinical trials. Many clinical trials that lead to drug approval will have only few or no Black men at all, yet these drugs go on to be widely prescribed to all men with prostate cancer.”

Results Are ‘Reassuring’

Reizine described the overall study findings as “reassuring,” especially in light of “studies that show that abiraterone and prednisone may be associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes. This study showed that in this VA population, even for patients who had cardiovascular disease, there was not a difference in how they did.”

As for choosing between agents, she recommended considering comorbidities and potential drug-drug interactions. “One of the big reasons that you may not be able to safely prescribe enzalutamide, for instance, is if a patient is on an anticoagulant, which is incredibly common in cancer patients. Enzalutamide has more drug-drug interactions than abiraterone and prednisone.” 

Study Demographics and Findings

The study included all patients with mHSPC who initiated abiraterone or enzalutamide between July 2017 and April 2023.

Median ages were 73 (abiraterone) and 74 years (enzalutamide, P = .29). Racial distribution was similar between groups: abiraterone (68.1% White, 25.0% Black, 6.9% other/unknown) and enzalutamide (66.6% White, 27.0% Black, 6.4% other/unknown; P = .74). Ethnicity was 89.2% non-Hispanic, 4.4% Hispanic, and 6.4% unknown in the abiraterone group vs 88.4% non-Hispanic, 3.5% Hispanic, and 8.0% unknown in the enzalutamide group (P = .50).

The groups had similar rates of the most common comorbidities: diabetes (40.5% vs 46.3%, respectively, P = .07), peripheral vascular disease (40.2% vs 37.6%, respectively, P = .44), and chronic pulmonary disease (37.0% vs 40.5%, P = .29).

In an inverse probability weighting analysis with abiraterone as reference, weighted median overall survival was comparable across the entire cohort (36.2 months, P = .32), Black veterans (39.7 months, P = .90), and those with cardiovascular disease (31.5 months, P = .30).

The authors noted limitations such as the observational cohort design and data constraints. 

The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Blavatnik Family Foundation.

Schoen discloses relationships with the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Astellas, and US Department of Defense. Other authors disclose relationships with the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Pfizer, Exelixis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Merck, Seagen, Bellicum, and BMS.

Outside the submitted work. Reizine discloses relationships with the US Department of Defense, Sanofi, Exelexis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, and Tempus.

Abiraterone and enzalutamide showed identical survival outcomes when used as first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), according to a new study using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data. The report represents the first head-to-head clinical analysis of these commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors.

Among 1258 veterans treated with abiraterone and 311 treated with enzalutamide, median overall survival was 36.2 months for both drugs. Patients were followed for a mean of 28.7 months (abiraterone) and 30.8 months (enzalutamide), reported by Martin W. Schoen, MD, MPH, from Saint Louis University School of Medicine and the St. Louis VA Medical Center, in JAMA Network Open. 

Notably, there was no significant difference in outcomes among Black veterans, who often have poorer outcomes in prostate cancer, and in patients with cardiovascular disease.

“This is the first direct comparison of abiraterone and enzalutamide for mHSPC in a clinical practice setting,” Schoen told Federal Practitioner. “At the population level, there are no differences based on initial treatment choice.”

Abiraterone Is Preferred in the VA Due to Cost

According to Schoen, abiraterone and enzalutamide are the most commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors to treat mHSPC within the VA. A 2025 study by Schoen and colleagues found that 53.7% of veterans with mHSPC in 2022 received androgen receptor inhibitor therapy, up from 16.9% in 2017. 

“In the VA, the preference for most patients is abiraterone since it is the least expensive agent,” he said. A generic version has been available for several years.

Additionally, abiraterone “has been on the market for the longest, and therefore clinicians are familiar with its use,” Schoen said. However, “clinicians have little idea of the comparative efficacy between these 2 agents,” he added.

The authors suggest that the cost and toxicities of the medications should guide clinician decisions, Schoen said. “There is data that abiraterone may worsen diabetes, since it is given with prednisone and could increase the risk of cardiovascular events,” he said.

He added that 2 newer drugs, apalutamide and darolutamide, are also “viable options.” Chemotherapies and certain targeted drugs are also available, “but they are only used in a select group of patients.”

Outside Specialist: Diverse Study Population Is a Plus

Hematologist-oncologist Natalie Reizine, MD, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, who was not involved in the study, told Federal Practitioner that the real-world data are valuable given the limitations of clinical trial populations.

“It’s difficult to compare clinical trials because they enroll different groups of patients,” she said. And, she said, they often exclude patients with significant comorbidities. “If they have bad cardiovascular disease, for instance, or poorly controlled diabetes, they're excluded from the clinical trial. But in real life, many of our patients have other medical problems that we have to manage.”

Reizine also emphasized the significance of the study’s diverse patient population. “Black men are very underrepresented in clinical trials. Many clinical trials that lead to drug approval will have only few or no Black men at all, yet these drugs go on to be widely prescribed to all men with prostate cancer.”

Results Are ‘Reassuring’

Reizine described the overall study findings as “reassuring,” especially in light of “studies that show that abiraterone and prednisone may be associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes. This study showed that in this VA population, even for patients who had cardiovascular disease, there was not a difference in how they did.”

As for choosing between agents, she recommended considering comorbidities and potential drug-drug interactions. “One of the big reasons that you may not be able to safely prescribe enzalutamide, for instance, is if a patient is on an anticoagulant, which is incredibly common in cancer patients. Enzalutamide has more drug-drug interactions than abiraterone and prednisone.” 

Study Demographics and Findings

The study included all patients with mHSPC who initiated abiraterone or enzalutamide between July 2017 and April 2023.

Median ages were 73 (abiraterone) and 74 years (enzalutamide, P = .29). Racial distribution was similar between groups: abiraterone (68.1% White, 25.0% Black, 6.9% other/unknown) and enzalutamide (66.6% White, 27.0% Black, 6.4% other/unknown; P = .74). Ethnicity was 89.2% non-Hispanic, 4.4% Hispanic, and 6.4% unknown in the abiraterone group vs 88.4% non-Hispanic, 3.5% Hispanic, and 8.0% unknown in the enzalutamide group (P = .50).

The groups had similar rates of the most common comorbidities: diabetes (40.5% vs 46.3%, respectively, P = .07), peripheral vascular disease (40.2% vs 37.6%, respectively, P = .44), and chronic pulmonary disease (37.0% vs 40.5%, P = .29).

In an inverse probability weighting analysis with abiraterone as reference, weighted median overall survival was comparable across the entire cohort (36.2 months, P = .32), Black veterans (39.7 months, P = .90), and those with cardiovascular disease (31.5 months, P = .30).

The authors noted limitations such as the observational cohort design and data constraints. 

The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Blavatnik Family Foundation.

Schoen discloses relationships with the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Astellas, and US Department of Defense. Other authors disclose relationships with the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Pfizer, Exelixis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Merck, Seagen, Bellicum, and BMS.

Outside the submitted work. Reizine discloses relationships with the US Department of Defense, Sanofi, Exelexis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, and Tempus.