User login
Patient Navigators for Serious Illnesses Can Now Bill Under New Medicare Codes
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Model Estimates Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B
The model, called Revised REACH-B or reREACH-B, stems from cohort studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, and looks at the nonlinear parabolic association between serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels and HCC risk.
“Current clinical practice guidelines don’t advocate antiviral treatment for patients with CHB who don’t show elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, even in those with high HBV viral loads,” said coauthor Young-Suk Lim, MD, PhD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.
“This stance is rooted in the notion that patients in the immune-tolerant phase are at very low risk for developing HCC,” Lim said. “However, the immune-tolerant phase includes patients with HBV DNA levels who face the highest risk for HCC, and many patients with moderate HBV viremia fall into an undefined gray zone.”
The study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Validating reREACH-B
During a course of CHB, HBV viral loads and HCC risks evolve over time because of viral replication and host immune responses, Lim explained. Most patients typically move to seroclearance and an “inactive hepatitis” phase, but about 10%-20% can progress to a “reactivation” phase, where HBV DNA levels and ALT levels increase, which can increase HCC risk as well.
In a previous cohort study in Taiwan, a prognostic model called Risk Estimation for HCC in CHB — or REACH-B — found the risk for HCC increases tenfold with increasing levels of HBV DNA up to 5 log10IU/mL in noncirrhotic patients with CHB, regardless of ALT levels. Another cohort study in South Korea found a nonlinear parabolic association between HCC risk and HBV DNA levels up to 9 log10 IU/mL, with the highest risks found for moderate HBV DNA levels around 6 log10 IU/mL.
In this study, Lim and colleagues developed a prognostic model to integrate the nonlinear relationship and validated it externally, as well as compared it with the previous REACH-B model. The Revised REACH-B model incorporates six variables: age, sex, platelet count, HBV DNA level, ALT, and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg).
The study included 14,378 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic adults with CHB and serum ALT levels < two times the upper limit of normal for at least 1 year and serum hepatitis B surface antigen for at least 6 months. The internal validation cohort included 6,949 patients from Asan Medical Center, and the external validation cohort included 7,429 patients from previous studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Among the Asan cohort, the mean age was 45 years, 29.9% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.1 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 25 U/L. In the external cohort, the mean age was 46 years, 21% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.4 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 20 U/L.
In the Asan cohort, 435 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 10 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.63 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 6.4%.
In the external cohort, 467 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 12 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.42 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 3.1%.
Overall, the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk was linear in the HBeAg-negative groups and inverse in the HBeAg-positive groups, with the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk showing a nonlinear parabolic pattern.
Across both cohorts, patients with HBV DNA levels between 5 and 6 log10 IU/mL had the highest risk for HCC in both the HBeAg-negative and HBeAg-positive groups, which was more than eight times higher than those HBV DNA levels ≤ 3 log10 IU/mL.
For internal validation, the Revised REACH-B model had a c-statistic of 0.844 and 5-year area under the curve of 0.864. For external validation across the three external cohorts, the reREACH-B had c-statistics of 0.804, 0.808, and 0.813, and 5-year area under the curve of 0.839, 0.860, and 0.865.
In addition, the revised model yielded a greater positive net benefit than the REACH-B model in the threshold probability range between 0% and 18%.
“These analyses indicate the reREACH-B model can be a valuable tool in clinical practice, aiding in timely management decisions,” Lim said.
Considering Prognostic Models
This study highlights the importance of recognizing that the association between HBV DNA viral load and HCC risk isn’t linear, said Norah Terrault, MD, chief of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“In contrast to most chronic liver diseases where liver cancer develops only among those with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, people with chronic hepatitis B are at risk prior to the development of cirrhosis,” she said. “Risk prediction scores for HCC can be a useful means of identifying those without cirrhosis who should be enrolled in HCC surveillance programs.”
For instance, patients with HBV DNA levels < 3 log10 IU/mL or > 8 log10 IU/mL don’t have an increased risk, Terrault noted. However, the highest risk group appears to be around 5-6 log10 IU/mL.
“Future risk prediction models should acknowledge that relationship in modeling HCC risk,” she said. “The re-REACH-B provides modest improvement over the REACH-B, but further validation of this score in more diverse cohorts is essential.”
The study received financial support from the Korean government and grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center of the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control through the National Cancer Center, which is funded by Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. Lim and Terrault reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The model, called Revised REACH-B or reREACH-B, stems from cohort studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, and looks at the nonlinear parabolic association between serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels and HCC risk.
“Current clinical practice guidelines don’t advocate antiviral treatment for patients with CHB who don’t show elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, even in those with high HBV viral loads,” said coauthor Young-Suk Lim, MD, PhD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.
“This stance is rooted in the notion that patients in the immune-tolerant phase are at very low risk for developing HCC,” Lim said. “However, the immune-tolerant phase includes patients with HBV DNA levels who face the highest risk for HCC, and many patients with moderate HBV viremia fall into an undefined gray zone.”
The study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Validating reREACH-B
During a course of CHB, HBV viral loads and HCC risks evolve over time because of viral replication and host immune responses, Lim explained. Most patients typically move to seroclearance and an “inactive hepatitis” phase, but about 10%-20% can progress to a “reactivation” phase, where HBV DNA levels and ALT levels increase, which can increase HCC risk as well.
In a previous cohort study in Taiwan, a prognostic model called Risk Estimation for HCC in CHB — or REACH-B — found the risk for HCC increases tenfold with increasing levels of HBV DNA up to 5 log10IU/mL in noncirrhotic patients with CHB, regardless of ALT levels. Another cohort study in South Korea found a nonlinear parabolic association between HCC risk and HBV DNA levels up to 9 log10 IU/mL, with the highest risks found for moderate HBV DNA levels around 6 log10 IU/mL.
In this study, Lim and colleagues developed a prognostic model to integrate the nonlinear relationship and validated it externally, as well as compared it with the previous REACH-B model. The Revised REACH-B model incorporates six variables: age, sex, platelet count, HBV DNA level, ALT, and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg).
The study included 14,378 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic adults with CHB and serum ALT levels < two times the upper limit of normal for at least 1 year and serum hepatitis B surface antigen for at least 6 months. The internal validation cohort included 6,949 patients from Asan Medical Center, and the external validation cohort included 7,429 patients from previous studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Among the Asan cohort, the mean age was 45 years, 29.9% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.1 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 25 U/L. In the external cohort, the mean age was 46 years, 21% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.4 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 20 U/L.
In the Asan cohort, 435 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 10 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.63 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 6.4%.
In the external cohort, 467 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 12 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.42 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 3.1%.
Overall, the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk was linear in the HBeAg-negative groups and inverse in the HBeAg-positive groups, with the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk showing a nonlinear parabolic pattern.
Across both cohorts, patients with HBV DNA levels between 5 and 6 log10 IU/mL had the highest risk for HCC in both the HBeAg-negative and HBeAg-positive groups, which was more than eight times higher than those HBV DNA levels ≤ 3 log10 IU/mL.
For internal validation, the Revised REACH-B model had a c-statistic of 0.844 and 5-year area under the curve of 0.864. For external validation across the three external cohorts, the reREACH-B had c-statistics of 0.804, 0.808, and 0.813, and 5-year area under the curve of 0.839, 0.860, and 0.865.
In addition, the revised model yielded a greater positive net benefit than the REACH-B model in the threshold probability range between 0% and 18%.
“These analyses indicate the reREACH-B model can be a valuable tool in clinical practice, aiding in timely management decisions,” Lim said.
Considering Prognostic Models
This study highlights the importance of recognizing that the association between HBV DNA viral load and HCC risk isn’t linear, said Norah Terrault, MD, chief of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“In contrast to most chronic liver diseases where liver cancer develops only among those with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, people with chronic hepatitis B are at risk prior to the development of cirrhosis,” she said. “Risk prediction scores for HCC can be a useful means of identifying those without cirrhosis who should be enrolled in HCC surveillance programs.”
For instance, patients with HBV DNA levels < 3 log10 IU/mL or > 8 log10 IU/mL don’t have an increased risk, Terrault noted. However, the highest risk group appears to be around 5-6 log10 IU/mL.
“Future risk prediction models should acknowledge that relationship in modeling HCC risk,” she said. “The re-REACH-B provides modest improvement over the REACH-B, but further validation of this score in more diverse cohorts is essential.”
The study received financial support from the Korean government and grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center of the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control through the National Cancer Center, which is funded by Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. Lim and Terrault reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The model, called Revised REACH-B or reREACH-B, stems from cohort studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, and looks at the nonlinear parabolic association between serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels and HCC risk.
“Current clinical practice guidelines don’t advocate antiviral treatment for patients with CHB who don’t show elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, even in those with high HBV viral loads,” said coauthor Young-Suk Lim, MD, PhD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.
“This stance is rooted in the notion that patients in the immune-tolerant phase are at very low risk for developing HCC,” Lim said. “However, the immune-tolerant phase includes patients with HBV DNA levels who face the highest risk for HCC, and many patients with moderate HBV viremia fall into an undefined gray zone.”
The study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Validating reREACH-B
During a course of CHB, HBV viral loads and HCC risks evolve over time because of viral replication and host immune responses, Lim explained. Most patients typically move to seroclearance and an “inactive hepatitis” phase, but about 10%-20% can progress to a “reactivation” phase, where HBV DNA levels and ALT levels increase, which can increase HCC risk as well.
In a previous cohort study in Taiwan, a prognostic model called Risk Estimation for HCC in CHB — or REACH-B — found the risk for HCC increases tenfold with increasing levels of HBV DNA up to 5 log10IU/mL in noncirrhotic patients with CHB, regardless of ALT levels. Another cohort study in South Korea found a nonlinear parabolic association between HCC risk and HBV DNA levels up to 9 log10 IU/mL, with the highest risks found for moderate HBV DNA levels around 6 log10 IU/mL.
In this study, Lim and colleagues developed a prognostic model to integrate the nonlinear relationship and validated it externally, as well as compared it with the previous REACH-B model. The Revised REACH-B model incorporates six variables: age, sex, platelet count, HBV DNA level, ALT, and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg).
The study included 14,378 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic adults with CHB and serum ALT levels < two times the upper limit of normal for at least 1 year and serum hepatitis B surface antigen for at least 6 months. The internal validation cohort included 6,949 patients from Asan Medical Center, and the external validation cohort included 7,429 patients from previous studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Among the Asan cohort, the mean age was 45 years, 29.9% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.1 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 25 U/L. In the external cohort, the mean age was 46 years, 21% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.4 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 20 U/L.
In the Asan cohort, 435 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 10 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.63 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 6.4%.
In the external cohort, 467 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 12 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.42 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 3.1%.
Overall, the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk was linear in the HBeAg-negative groups and inverse in the HBeAg-positive groups, with the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk showing a nonlinear parabolic pattern.
Across both cohorts, patients with HBV DNA levels between 5 and 6 log10 IU/mL had the highest risk for HCC in both the HBeAg-negative and HBeAg-positive groups, which was more than eight times higher than those HBV DNA levels ≤ 3 log10 IU/mL.
For internal validation, the Revised REACH-B model had a c-statistic of 0.844 and 5-year area under the curve of 0.864. For external validation across the three external cohorts, the reREACH-B had c-statistics of 0.804, 0.808, and 0.813, and 5-year area under the curve of 0.839, 0.860, and 0.865.
In addition, the revised model yielded a greater positive net benefit than the REACH-B model in the threshold probability range between 0% and 18%.
“These analyses indicate the reREACH-B model can be a valuable tool in clinical practice, aiding in timely management decisions,” Lim said.
Considering Prognostic Models
This study highlights the importance of recognizing that the association between HBV DNA viral load and HCC risk isn’t linear, said Norah Terrault, MD, chief of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“In contrast to most chronic liver diseases where liver cancer develops only among those with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, people with chronic hepatitis B are at risk prior to the development of cirrhosis,” she said. “Risk prediction scores for HCC can be a useful means of identifying those without cirrhosis who should be enrolled in HCC surveillance programs.”
For instance, patients with HBV DNA levels < 3 log10 IU/mL or > 8 log10 IU/mL don’t have an increased risk, Terrault noted. However, the highest risk group appears to be around 5-6 log10 IU/mL.
“Future risk prediction models should acknowledge that relationship in modeling HCC risk,” she said. “The re-REACH-B provides modest improvement over the REACH-B, but further validation of this score in more diverse cohorts is essential.”
The study received financial support from the Korean government and grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center of the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control through the National Cancer Center, which is funded by Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. Lim and Terrault reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Merkel Cell Carcinoma Less Common, With higher Mortality Than Melanoma
TOPLINE:
that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
- Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
- Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.
TAKEAWAY:
- Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
- Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
- Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
- Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).
IN PRACTICE:
“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
- Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
- Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.
TAKEAWAY:
- Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
- Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
- Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
- Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).
IN PRACTICE:
“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
- Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
- Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.
TAKEAWAY:
- Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
- Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
- Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
- Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).
IN PRACTICE:
“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Weight Loss Drugs May Fight Obesity-Related Cancer, Too
The latest glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been heralded for their potential to not only boost weight loss and glucose control but also improve cardiovascular, gastric, hepatic, and renal values.
Throughout 2024, research has also indicated GLP-1 drugs may reduce risks for obesity-related cancer.
In a US study of more than 1.6 million patients with type 2 diabetes, cancer researchers found that patients who took a GLP-1 drug had significant risk reductions for 10 of 13 obesity-associated cancers, as compared with patients who only took insulin.
They also saw a declining risk for stomach cancer, though it wasn’t considered statistically significant, but not a reduced risk for postmenopausal breast cancer or thyroid cancer.
The associations make sense, particularly because GLP-1 drugs have unexpected effects on modulating immune functions linked to obesity-associated cancers.
“The protective effects of GLP-1s against obesity-associated cancers likely stem from multiple mechanisms,” said lead author Lindsey Wang, a medical student and research scholar at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
“These drugs promote substantial weight loss, reducing obesity-related cancer risks,” she said. “They also enhance insulin sensitivity and lower insulin levels, decreasing cancer cell growth signals.”
Additional GLP-1 Studies
The Case Western team also published a study in December 2023 that found people with type 2 diabetes who took GLP-1s had a 44% lower risk for colorectal cancer than those who took insulin and a 25% lower risk than those who took metformin. The research suggested even greater risk reductions among those with overweight or obesity, with GLP-1 users having a 50% lower risk than those who took insulin and a 42% lower risk than those who took metformin.
In another recent Case Western study, both bariatric surgery and GLP-1 drugs reduced the risk for obesity-related cancers. While those who had bariatric surgery had a 22% risk reduction over 10 years, as compared with those who received no treatment, those taking GLP-1 had a 39% risk reduction.
Other studies worldwide have looked at GLP-1 drugs and tumor effects among various cancer cell lines. In a study using pancreatic cancer cell lines, GLP-1 liraglutide suppressed cancer cell growth and led to cell death. Similarly, a study using breast cancer cells found liraglutide reduced cancer cell viability and the ability for cells to migrate.
As researchers identify additional links between GLP-1s and improvements across organ systems, the knock-on effects could lead to lower cancer risks as well. For example, studies presented at The Liver Meeting in San Diego in November pointed to GLP-1s reducing fatty liver disease, which can slow the progression to liver cancer.
“Separate from obesity, having higher levels of body fat is associated with an increased risk of several forms of cancer,” said Neil Iyengar, MD, an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Iyengar researches the relationship between obesity and cancer.
“I foresee that this class of drugs will revolutionize obesity and the cancer burden that comes with it, if people can get access,” he said. “This really is an exciting development.”
Ongoing GLP-1 Research
On the other hand, cancer researchers have also expressed concerns about potential associations between GLP-1s and increased cancer risks. In the obesity-associated cancer study by Case Western researchers, patients with type 2 diabetes taking a GLP-1 drug appeared to have a slightly higher risk for kidney cancer than those taking metformin.
In addition, GLP-1 studies in animals have indicated that the drugs may increase the risks for medullary thyroid cancer and pancreatic cancer. However, the data on increased risks in humans remain inconclusive, and more recent studies refute these findings.
For instance, cancer researchers in India conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of semaglutide and cancer risks, finding that 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies didn’t find increased risks for any cancer, including pancreatic and thyroid cancers.
In another systematic review by Brazilian researchers, 50 trials found GLP-1s didn’t increase the risk for breast cancer or benign breast neoplasms.
In 2025, new retrospective studies will show more nuanced data, especially as more patients — both with and without type 2 diabetes — take semaglutide, tirzepatide, and new GLP-1 drugs in the research pipeline.
“The holy grail has always been getting a medication to treat obesity,” said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and obesity researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.
“There have been trials focused on these medications’ effects on diabetes and cardiovascular disease treatment, but no trials have tested their effects on cancer risk,” she said. “Usually, many years of follow-up of large numbers of patients are needed to see cancer effects of a carcinogen or cancer-preventing intervention.”
Those clinical trials are likely coming soon, she said. Researchers will need to conduct prospective clinical trials to examine the direct relationship between GLP-1 drugs and cancer risks, as well as the underlying mechanisms linked to cancer cell growth, activation of immune cells, and anti-inflammatory properties.
Because GLP-1 medications aren’t intended to be taken forever, researchers will also need to consider the associations with long-term cancer risks. Even so, weight loss and other obesity-related improvements could contribute to overall lower cancer risks in the end.
“If taking these drugs for a limited amount of time can help people lose weight and get on an exercise plan, then that’s helping lower cancer risk long-term,” said Sonali Thosani, MD, associate professor of endocrine neoplasia and hormonal disorders at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“But it all comes back to someone making lifestyle changes and sticking to them, even after they stop taking the drugs,” she said. “If they can do that, then you’ll probably see a net positive for long-term cancer risks and other long-term health risks.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been heralded for their potential to not only boost weight loss and glucose control but also improve cardiovascular, gastric, hepatic, and renal values.
Throughout 2024, research has also indicated GLP-1 drugs may reduce risks for obesity-related cancer.
In a US study of more than 1.6 million patients with type 2 diabetes, cancer researchers found that patients who took a GLP-1 drug had significant risk reductions for 10 of 13 obesity-associated cancers, as compared with patients who only took insulin.
They also saw a declining risk for stomach cancer, though it wasn’t considered statistically significant, but not a reduced risk for postmenopausal breast cancer or thyroid cancer.
The associations make sense, particularly because GLP-1 drugs have unexpected effects on modulating immune functions linked to obesity-associated cancers.
“The protective effects of GLP-1s against obesity-associated cancers likely stem from multiple mechanisms,” said lead author Lindsey Wang, a medical student and research scholar at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
“These drugs promote substantial weight loss, reducing obesity-related cancer risks,” she said. “They also enhance insulin sensitivity and lower insulin levels, decreasing cancer cell growth signals.”
Additional GLP-1 Studies
The Case Western team also published a study in December 2023 that found people with type 2 diabetes who took GLP-1s had a 44% lower risk for colorectal cancer than those who took insulin and a 25% lower risk than those who took metformin. The research suggested even greater risk reductions among those with overweight or obesity, with GLP-1 users having a 50% lower risk than those who took insulin and a 42% lower risk than those who took metformin.
In another recent Case Western study, both bariatric surgery and GLP-1 drugs reduced the risk for obesity-related cancers. While those who had bariatric surgery had a 22% risk reduction over 10 years, as compared with those who received no treatment, those taking GLP-1 had a 39% risk reduction.
Other studies worldwide have looked at GLP-1 drugs and tumor effects among various cancer cell lines. In a study using pancreatic cancer cell lines, GLP-1 liraglutide suppressed cancer cell growth and led to cell death. Similarly, a study using breast cancer cells found liraglutide reduced cancer cell viability and the ability for cells to migrate.
As researchers identify additional links between GLP-1s and improvements across organ systems, the knock-on effects could lead to lower cancer risks as well. For example, studies presented at The Liver Meeting in San Diego in November pointed to GLP-1s reducing fatty liver disease, which can slow the progression to liver cancer.
“Separate from obesity, having higher levels of body fat is associated with an increased risk of several forms of cancer,” said Neil Iyengar, MD, an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Iyengar researches the relationship between obesity and cancer.
“I foresee that this class of drugs will revolutionize obesity and the cancer burden that comes with it, if people can get access,” he said. “This really is an exciting development.”
Ongoing GLP-1 Research
On the other hand, cancer researchers have also expressed concerns about potential associations between GLP-1s and increased cancer risks. In the obesity-associated cancer study by Case Western researchers, patients with type 2 diabetes taking a GLP-1 drug appeared to have a slightly higher risk for kidney cancer than those taking metformin.
In addition, GLP-1 studies in animals have indicated that the drugs may increase the risks for medullary thyroid cancer and pancreatic cancer. However, the data on increased risks in humans remain inconclusive, and more recent studies refute these findings.
For instance, cancer researchers in India conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of semaglutide and cancer risks, finding that 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies didn’t find increased risks for any cancer, including pancreatic and thyroid cancers.
In another systematic review by Brazilian researchers, 50 trials found GLP-1s didn’t increase the risk for breast cancer or benign breast neoplasms.
In 2025, new retrospective studies will show more nuanced data, especially as more patients — both with and without type 2 diabetes — take semaglutide, tirzepatide, and new GLP-1 drugs in the research pipeline.
“The holy grail has always been getting a medication to treat obesity,” said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and obesity researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.
“There have been trials focused on these medications’ effects on diabetes and cardiovascular disease treatment, but no trials have tested their effects on cancer risk,” she said. “Usually, many years of follow-up of large numbers of patients are needed to see cancer effects of a carcinogen or cancer-preventing intervention.”
Those clinical trials are likely coming soon, she said. Researchers will need to conduct prospective clinical trials to examine the direct relationship between GLP-1 drugs and cancer risks, as well as the underlying mechanisms linked to cancer cell growth, activation of immune cells, and anti-inflammatory properties.
Because GLP-1 medications aren’t intended to be taken forever, researchers will also need to consider the associations with long-term cancer risks. Even so, weight loss and other obesity-related improvements could contribute to overall lower cancer risks in the end.
“If taking these drugs for a limited amount of time can help people lose weight and get on an exercise plan, then that’s helping lower cancer risk long-term,” said Sonali Thosani, MD, associate professor of endocrine neoplasia and hormonal disorders at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“But it all comes back to someone making lifestyle changes and sticking to them, even after they stop taking the drugs,” she said. “If they can do that, then you’ll probably see a net positive for long-term cancer risks and other long-term health risks.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been heralded for their potential to not only boost weight loss and glucose control but also improve cardiovascular, gastric, hepatic, and renal values.
Throughout 2024, research has also indicated GLP-1 drugs may reduce risks for obesity-related cancer.
In a US study of more than 1.6 million patients with type 2 diabetes, cancer researchers found that patients who took a GLP-1 drug had significant risk reductions for 10 of 13 obesity-associated cancers, as compared with patients who only took insulin.
They also saw a declining risk for stomach cancer, though it wasn’t considered statistically significant, but not a reduced risk for postmenopausal breast cancer or thyroid cancer.
The associations make sense, particularly because GLP-1 drugs have unexpected effects on modulating immune functions linked to obesity-associated cancers.
“The protective effects of GLP-1s against obesity-associated cancers likely stem from multiple mechanisms,” said lead author Lindsey Wang, a medical student and research scholar at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
“These drugs promote substantial weight loss, reducing obesity-related cancer risks,” she said. “They also enhance insulin sensitivity and lower insulin levels, decreasing cancer cell growth signals.”
Additional GLP-1 Studies
The Case Western team also published a study in December 2023 that found people with type 2 diabetes who took GLP-1s had a 44% lower risk for colorectal cancer than those who took insulin and a 25% lower risk than those who took metformin. The research suggested even greater risk reductions among those with overweight or obesity, with GLP-1 users having a 50% lower risk than those who took insulin and a 42% lower risk than those who took metformin.
In another recent Case Western study, both bariatric surgery and GLP-1 drugs reduced the risk for obesity-related cancers. While those who had bariatric surgery had a 22% risk reduction over 10 years, as compared with those who received no treatment, those taking GLP-1 had a 39% risk reduction.
Other studies worldwide have looked at GLP-1 drugs and tumor effects among various cancer cell lines. In a study using pancreatic cancer cell lines, GLP-1 liraglutide suppressed cancer cell growth and led to cell death. Similarly, a study using breast cancer cells found liraglutide reduced cancer cell viability and the ability for cells to migrate.
As researchers identify additional links between GLP-1s and improvements across organ systems, the knock-on effects could lead to lower cancer risks as well. For example, studies presented at The Liver Meeting in San Diego in November pointed to GLP-1s reducing fatty liver disease, which can slow the progression to liver cancer.
“Separate from obesity, having higher levels of body fat is associated with an increased risk of several forms of cancer,” said Neil Iyengar, MD, an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Iyengar researches the relationship between obesity and cancer.
“I foresee that this class of drugs will revolutionize obesity and the cancer burden that comes with it, if people can get access,” he said. “This really is an exciting development.”
Ongoing GLP-1 Research
On the other hand, cancer researchers have also expressed concerns about potential associations between GLP-1s and increased cancer risks. In the obesity-associated cancer study by Case Western researchers, patients with type 2 diabetes taking a GLP-1 drug appeared to have a slightly higher risk for kidney cancer than those taking metformin.
In addition, GLP-1 studies in animals have indicated that the drugs may increase the risks for medullary thyroid cancer and pancreatic cancer. However, the data on increased risks in humans remain inconclusive, and more recent studies refute these findings.
For instance, cancer researchers in India conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of semaglutide and cancer risks, finding that 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies didn’t find increased risks for any cancer, including pancreatic and thyroid cancers.
In another systematic review by Brazilian researchers, 50 trials found GLP-1s didn’t increase the risk for breast cancer or benign breast neoplasms.
In 2025, new retrospective studies will show more nuanced data, especially as more patients — both with and without type 2 diabetes — take semaglutide, tirzepatide, and new GLP-1 drugs in the research pipeline.
“The holy grail has always been getting a medication to treat obesity,” said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and obesity researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.
“There have been trials focused on these medications’ effects on diabetes and cardiovascular disease treatment, but no trials have tested their effects on cancer risk,” she said. “Usually, many years of follow-up of large numbers of patients are needed to see cancer effects of a carcinogen or cancer-preventing intervention.”
Those clinical trials are likely coming soon, she said. Researchers will need to conduct prospective clinical trials to examine the direct relationship between GLP-1 drugs and cancer risks, as well as the underlying mechanisms linked to cancer cell growth, activation of immune cells, and anti-inflammatory properties.
Because GLP-1 medications aren’t intended to be taken forever, researchers will also need to consider the associations with long-term cancer risks. Even so, weight loss and other obesity-related improvements could contribute to overall lower cancer risks in the end.
“If taking these drugs for a limited amount of time can help people lose weight and get on an exercise plan, then that’s helping lower cancer risk long-term,” said Sonali Thosani, MD, associate professor of endocrine neoplasia and hormonal disorders at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“But it all comes back to someone making lifestyle changes and sticking to them, even after they stop taking the drugs,” she said. “If they can do that, then you’ll probably see a net positive for long-term cancer risks and other long-term health risks.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Red Wine May Not Be a Health Tonic, But Is It a Cancer Risk?
Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.
But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?
For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.
The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.
Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.
Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.
“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”
The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk
Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”
Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)
“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.
Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.
Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.
As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.
“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”
Hints That Wine Is an Outlier
Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.
A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).
Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).
The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.
This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.
“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”
Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.
The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.
Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.
In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”
Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.
In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.
“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”
A Conversation Few Are Having
Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.
A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.
“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.
That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.
It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.
“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”
Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.
But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?
For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.
The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.
Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.
Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.
“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”
The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk
Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”
Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)
“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.
Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.
Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.
As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.
“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”
Hints That Wine Is an Outlier
Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.
A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).
Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).
The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.
This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.
“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”
Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.
The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.
Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.
In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”
Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.
In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.
“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”
A Conversation Few Are Having
Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.
A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.
“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.
That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.
It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.
“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”
Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.
But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?
For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.
The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.
Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.
Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.
“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”
The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk
Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”
Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)
“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.
Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.
Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.
As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.
“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”
Hints That Wine Is an Outlier
Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.
A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).
Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).
The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.
This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.
“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”
Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.
The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.
Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.
In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”
Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.
In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.
“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”
A Conversation Few Are Having
Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.
A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.
“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.
That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.
It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.
“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”
Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Proposed Health Cybersecurity Rule: What Physicians Should Know
A new federal rule could force hospitals and doctors’ groups to boost health cybersecurity measures to better protect patients’ health information and prevent ransomware attacks.
The proposed rule, issued by the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and published on January 6 in the Federal Register, marks the first time in a decade that the federal government has updated regulations governing the security of private health information (PHI) that’s kept or shared online. Comments on the rule are due on March 6.
Because the risks for cyberattacks have increased exponentially, “there is a greater need to invest than ever before in both people and technologies to secure patient information,” Adam Greene, an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine in Washington, DC, who advises healthcare clients on cybersecurity, said in an interview.
Bad actors continue to evolve and are often far ahead of their targets, added Mark Fox, privacy and research compliance officer for the American College of Cardiology.
In the proposed rule, HHS noted that breaches have risen by more than 50% since 2020. Damages from health data breaches are more expensive than in any other sector, averaging $10 million per incident, said HHS.
The damage can continue for years, as much of the data — such as date of birth — in PHI are “immutable,” unlike a credit card number, the agency said. A review of breach reports made to HHS’ Office for Civil Rights shows near-daily data breaches affecting hundreds to tens of thousands of patients. Since December 1 alone, healthcare providers reported breaches affecting nearly 3 million US patients, according to federal data.
Debi Carr, a Florida-based cybersecurity consultant for small physician and dental practices, welcomed the new proposal. “Many practices are clinging to doing things the way they have always done it, and hackers are taking full advantage of that mindset,” she said in an interview. “We have to change our mindset.”
Among the proposal’s recommendations:
- A shift away from making security specifications “addressable” to required. Fox said that many interpreted addressable to mean optional. The clarification is important. The government will require greater accountability, including a requirement to annually revise the risk analysis, to review policies and procedures and implementation, and to perform penetration testing, said Greene.
- Requiring multifactor authentication (MFA) and encryption of PHI at rest and in transit. “A reasonable person who does security will tell you that should be a requirement,” said Fox. Carr added that the February 2024 Change Healthcare ransomware attack happened because workers at the payment processing company were not using MFA.
- Requiring all entities to verify at least once a year that “business associates” have put into place the required safeguards; the associates would need to provide a written analysis of relevant electronic information systems by a subject matter expert and a written certification that the analysis has been performed and is accurate. In the past, the rule “only required that you sign a business associate agreement” with the associate, which could be a payer, a pharmacy, or another physician practice, said Fox. The rule would require all entities to get certification that the controls are in place.
- Requiring a detailed map of an electronic network. For a physician practice, that means creating an inventory of all the technology assets, including devices, applications, and anything that would touch electronic PHI, and then creating a map of how it comes into the office, flows through it, and departs, said Greene.
- Having a plan of action in the case of a breach. The rule will require written procedures to restore certain relevant systems and data within 72 hours and written incident response plans.
Some physician practices — especially those still relying on passwords instead of more sophisticated MFA or encryption — may have to invest significantly to strengthen their information security, said Greene. Smaller organizations, for example, may need to upgrade systems to ensure that user access is terminated within an hour after someone’s employment ends.
Carr said practices should not view the investments as a burden. The regulation “will force practices to implement best cybersecurity practices,” she said.
Implementing those best practices serves as insurance, said Fox. He suggests that anyone in doubt “talk to someone who’s actually lived through a breach and had to recover.”
Tampa General Hospital in Florida, for instance, recently settled a class action suit, agreeing to pay $6.8 million to patients whose PHI was compromised.
It is not certain whether or when the health cybersecurity rule will be made final.
The incoming Trump administration could cancel or delay the rulemaking process.
Even if it continues, “I would not expect a final rule in 2025,” said Greene. He estimates that the rule would not take effect until at least 2026; healthcare entities would have 180 days to comply. Still, those 180 days can go by fast.
“I would say don’t panic, but don’t ignore it either,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new federal rule could force hospitals and doctors’ groups to boost health cybersecurity measures to better protect patients’ health information and prevent ransomware attacks.
The proposed rule, issued by the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and published on January 6 in the Federal Register, marks the first time in a decade that the federal government has updated regulations governing the security of private health information (PHI) that’s kept or shared online. Comments on the rule are due on March 6.
Because the risks for cyberattacks have increased exponentially, “there is a greater need to invest than ever before in both people and technologies to secure patient information,” Adam Greene, an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine in Washington, DC, who advises healthcare clients on cybersecurity, said in an interview.
Bad actors continue to evolve and are often far ahead of their targets, added Mark Fox, privacy and research compliance officer for the American College of Cardiology.
In the proposed rule, HHS noted that breaches have risen by more than 50% since 2020. Damages from health data breaches are more expensive than in any other sector, averaging $10 million per incident, said HHS.
The damage can continue for years, as much of the data — such as date of birth — in PHI are “immutable,” unlike a credit card number, the agency said. A review of breach reports made to HHS’ Office for Civil Rights shows near-daily data breaches affecting hundreds to tens of thousands of patients. Since December 1 alone, healthcare providers reported breaches affecting nearly 3 million US patients, according to federal data.
Debi Carr, a Florida-based cybersecurity consultant for small physician and dental practices, welcomed the new proposal. “Many practices are clinging to doing things the way they have always done it, and hackers are taking full advantage of that mindset,” she said in an interview. “We have to change our mindset.”
Among the proposal’s recommendations:
- A shift away from making security specifications “addressable” to required. Fox said that many interpreted addressable to mean optional. The clarification is important. The government will require greater accountability, including a requirement to annually revise the risk analysis, to review policies and procedures and implementation, and to perform penetration testing, said Greene.
- Requiring multifactor authentication (MFA) and encryption of PHI at rest and in transit. “A reasonable person who does security will tell you that should be a requirement,” said Fox. Carr added that the February 2024 Change Healthcare ransomware attack happened because workers at the payment processing company were not using MFA.
- Requiring all entities to verify at least once a year that “business associates” have put into place the required safeguards; the associates would need to provide a written analysis of relevant electronic information systems by a subject matter expert and a written certification that the analysis has been performed and is accurate. In the past, the rule “only required that you sign a business associate agreement” with the associate, which could be a payer, a pharmacy, or another physician practice, said Fox. The rule would require all entities to get certification that the controls are in place.
- Requiring a detailed map of an electronic network. For a physician practice, that means creating an inventory of all the technology assets, including devices, applications, and anything that would touch electronic PHI, and then creating a map of how it comes into the office, flows through it, and departs, said Greene.
- Having a plan of action in the case of a breach. The rule will require written procedures to restore certain relevant systems and data within 72 hours and written incident response plans.
Some physician practices — especially those still relying on passwords instead of more sophisticated MFA or encryption — may have to invest significantly to strengthen their information security, said Greene. Smaller organizations, for example, may need to upgrade systems to ensure that user access is terminated within an hour after someone’s employment ends.
Carr said practices should not view the investments as a burden. The regulation “will force practices to implement best cybersecurity practices,” she said.
Implementing those best practices serves as insurance, said Fox. He suggests that anyone in doubt “talk to someone who’s actually lived through a breach and had to recover.”
Tampa General Hospital in Florida, for instance, recently settled a class action suit, agreeing to pay $6.8 million to patients whose PHI was compromised.
It is not certain whether or when the health cybersecurity rule will be made final.
The incoming Trump administration could cancel or delay the rulemaking process.
Even if it continues, “I would not expect a final rule in 2025,” said Greene. He estimates that the rule would not take effect until at least 2026; healthcare entities would have 180 days to comply. Still, those 180 days can go by fast.
“I would say don’t panic, but don’t ignore it either,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new federal rule could force hospitals and doctors’ groups to boost health cybersecurity measures to better protect patients’ health information and prevent ransomware attacks.
The proposed rule, issued by the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and published on January 6 in the Federal Register, marks the first time in a decade that the federal government has updated regulations governing the security of private health information (PHI) that’s kept or shared online. Comments on the rule are due on March 6.
Because the risks for cyberattacks have increased exponentially, “there is a greater need to invest than ever before in both people and technologies to secure patient information,” Adam Greene, an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine in Washington, DC, who advises healthcare clients on cybersecurity, said in an interview.
Bad actors continue to evolve and are often far ahead of their targets, added Mark Fox, privacy and research compliance officer for the American College of Cardiology.
In the proposed rule, HHS noted that breaches have risen by more than 50% since 2020. Damages from health data breaches are more expensive than in any other sector, averaging $10 million per incident, said HHS.
The damage can continue for years, as much of the data — such as date of birth — in PHI are “immutable,” unlike a credit card number, the agency said. A review of breach reports made to HHS’ Office for Civil Rights shows near-daily data breaches affecting hundreds to tens of thousands of patients. Since December 1 alone, healthcare providers reported breaches affecting nearly 3 million US patients, according to federal data.
Debi Carr, a Florida-based cybersecurity consultant for small physician and dental practices, welcomed the new proposal. “Many practices are clinging to doing things the way they have always done it, and hackers are taking full advantage of that mindset,” she said in an interview. “We have to change our mindset.”
Among the proposal’s recommendations:
- A shift away from making security specifications “addressable” to required. Fox said that many interpreted addressable to mean optional. The clarification is important. The government will require greater accountability, including a requirement to annually revise the risk analysis, to review policies and procedures and implementation, and to perform penetration testing, said Greene.
- Requiring multifactor authentication (MFA) and encryption of PHI at rest and in transit. “A reasonable person who does security will tell you that should be a requirement,” said Fox. Carr added that the February 2024 Change Healthcare ransomware attack happened because workers at the payment processing company were not using MFA.
- Requiring all entities to verify at least once a year that “business associates” have put into place the required safeguards; the associates would need to provide a written analysis of relevant electronic information systems by a subject matter expert and a written certification that the analysis has been performed and is accurate. In the past, the rule “only required that you sign a business associate agreement” with the associate, which could be a payer, a pharmacy, or another physician practice, said Fox. The rule would require all entities to get certification that the controls are in place.
- Requiring a detailed map of an electronic network. For a physician practice, that means creating an inventory of all the technology assets, including devices, applications, and anything that would touch electronic PHI, and then creating a map of how it comes into the office, flows through it, and departs, said Greene.
- Having a plan of action in the case of a breach. The rule will require written procedures to restore certain relevant systems and data within 72 hours and written incident response plans.
Some physician practices — especially those still relying on passwords instead of more sophisticated MFA or encryption — may have to invest significantly to strengthen their information security, said Greene. Smaller organizations, for example, may need to upgrade systems to ensure that user access is terminated within an hour after someone’s employment ends.
Carr said practices should not view the investments as a burden. The regulation “will force practices to implement best cybersecurity practices,” she said.
Implementing those best practices serves as insurance, said Fox. He suggests that anyone in doubt “talk to someone who’s actually lived through a breach and had to recover.”
Tampa General Hospital in Florida, for instance, recently settled a class action suit, agreeing to pay $6.8 million to patients whose PHI was compromised.
It is not certain whether or when the health cybersecurity rule will be made final.
The incoming Trump administration could cancel or delay the rulemaking process.
Even if it continues, “I would not expect a final rule in 2025,” said Greene. He estimates that the rule would not take effect until at least 2026; healthcare entities would have 180 days to comply. Still, those 180 days can go by fast.
“I would say don’t panic, but don’t ignore it either,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Leaving ED Without Being Seen Entails Increasing Risks
Higher rates of leaving the emergency department (ED) without being seen are linked to increased short-term mortality or hospitalization, according to a cohort study in Ontario, Canada.
“We found that after 2020, there was a 14% higher risk for death or hospitalization within 7 days” among patients who left without being seen (LWBS), Candace McNaughton, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and scientist at Sunnybrook Research Institute, both in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.
“When we looked at death by itself, there was a 46% higher risk after 2020,” she said. “Even 30 days after a LWBS ED visit, there was still a 5% increased risk for death/hospitalization and a 24% increased risk for death.”
The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open.
LWBS Rates Increased
Researchers used linked administrative data to analyze temporal trends in monthly rates of ED and LWBS visits for adults in Ontario from 2014 to 2023.
They compared the composite outcome of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization following an LWBS ED visit in April 2022‒March 2023 (recent period) with that following an LWBS ED visit in April 2014‒March 2020 (baseline period), after adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).
In the two periods, patient characteristics were similar across age, sex, neighborhood-level income quartile, history of being unhoused, rurality, CCI, day, time, and mode of arrival. The median age was 40 years for the baseline period and 42 years for the recent period.
Temporal trends showed sustained increases in monthly LWBS rates after 2020, despite fewer monthly ED visits. The rate of LWBS ED visits after April 1, 2020, exceeded the baseline period’s single-month LWBS maximum of 4% in 15 of 36 months.
The rate of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization was 3.4% in the recent period vs 2.9% in the baseline period (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.14), despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (7-day recent and baseline, 38.9% and 39.7%, respectively).
Similar trends were seen at 30 days for all-cause mortality or hospitalization (6.2% in the recent period vs 5.8% at baseline; aRR, 1.05) despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (59.4% and 59.7%, respectively).
After April 1, 2020, monthly ED visits and the proportion of patients who LWBS varied widely.
The proportion of LWBS visits categorized as emergent on the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale was higher during the recent period (12.9% vs 9.2% in the baseline period), and fewer visits were categorized as semiurgent (22.6% vs 31.9%, respectively). This finding suggested a higher acuity of illness among patients who LWBS in the recent period.
LWBS Visits ‘Not Benign’
Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis examining the risk for all-cause mortality after an LWBS visit were “particularly notable,” the authors wrote, with a 46% higher adjusted risk for death at 7 days and 24% higher adjusted risk at 30 days.
The observational study had several limitations, however. The authors could not draw conclusions regarding direct causes of the increased risk for severe short-term adverse health outcomes after an LWBS ED visit, and residual confounding is possible. Cause-of-death information was not available to generate hypotheses for future studies of potential causes. Furthermore, the findings may not be generalizable to systems without universal access to healthcare.
Nevertheless, the findings are a “concerning signal [and] should prompt interventions to address system- and population-level causes,” the authors wrote.
“Unfortunately, because of politics, since 2020, ED closures in Ontario have become more and more common and seem to be affecting more and more Ontarians,” said McNaughton. “It would be surprising if ED closure didn’t play some role in our findings.”
She added, “It is important to note that people in our study were relatively young, with a median age in their 40s; this makes our findings all the more concerning. Clinicians should be aware that LWBS ED visits are not necessarily benign, particularly when rates of LWBS ED visits are high.”
Unanswered Questions
The study raised the following questions that the authors are or will be investigating, according to McNaughton:
- Which patients are at greatest risk for bad outcomes if they leave the ED without being seen, and why?
- How much of the findings might be related to recent ED closures, longer ED wait times, or other factors? Are there geographic variations in risk?
- What can be done in the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits, and what can be changed outside the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits? For example, what can hospitals do to reduce boarding in the ED? If patients leave without being seen, should they be contacted to try to meet their health needs in other ways?
- What worked in terms of maintaining access to outpatient medical care, despite the considerable disruptions starting in 2020, and how can continued success be ensured?
To address the current situation, McNaughton said, “We need consistent, predictable, and sustained investment in our public healthcare system. We need long-term, consistent funding for primary care, ED care, as well as hospital and long-term care.”
“It takes years to recruit and train the teams of people necessary to provide the high-quality medical care that Canadians have a right to. There are no shortcuts,” she concluded.
‘Tragic Situation’
American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) spokesperson Jesse Pines, MD, chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions; clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC; and professor of emergency medicine at Drexel University in Philadelphia, commented on the study for this news organization.
“Similar to what the authors found in their report, LWBS and other metrics — specifically boarding — have progressively increased in the United States, in particular, since the early part of 2021,” he said. “The primary factor in the US driving this, and one that ACEP is trying to address on a national scale, is the boarding of admitted patients.”
When the number of boarded patients increases, there is less space in the ED for new patients, and waits increase, Pines explained. Some patients leave without being seen, and a subset of those patients experience poor outcomes. “It’s a tragic situation that is worsening.”
“Emergency physicians like me always worry when patients leave without being seen,” he said. While some of those patients have self-limited conditions that will improve on their own, “some have critical life-threatening conditions that require care and hospitalization. The worry is that these patients experience poorer outcomes,” Pines said. “The authors showed that this is increasingly the case in Canada. The same is likely true in the US.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. McNaughton and Pines declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Higher rates of leaving the emergency department (ED) without being seen are linked to increased short-term mortality or hospitalization, according to a cohort study in Ontario, Canada.
“We found that after 2020, there was a 14% higher risk for death or hospitalization within 7 days” among patients who left without being seen (LWBS), Candace McNaughton, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and scientist at Sunnybrook Research Institute, both in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.
“When we looked at death by itself, there was a 46% higher risk after 2020,” she said. “Even 30 days after a LWBS ED visit, there was still a 5% increased risk for death/hospitalization and a 24% increased risk for death.”
The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open.
LWBS Rates Increased
Researchers used linked administrative data to analyze temporal trends in monthly rates of ED and LWBS visits for adults in Ontario from 2014 to 2023.
They compared the composite outcome of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization following an LWBS ED visit in April 2022‒March 2023 (recent period) with that following an LWBS ED visit in April 2014‒March 2020 (baseline period), after adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).
In the two periods, patient characteristics were similar across age, sex, neighborhood-level income quartile, history of being unhoused, rurality, CCI, day, time, and mode of arrival. The median age was 40 years for the baseline period and 42 years for the recent period.
Temporal trends showed sustained increases in monthly LWBS rates after 2020, despite fewer monthly ED visits. The rate of LWBS ED visits after April 1, 2020, exceeded the baseline period’s single-month LWBS maximum of 4% in 15 of 36 months.
The rate of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization was 3.4% in the recent period vs 2.9% in the baseline period (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.14), despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (7-day recent and baseline, 38.9% and 39.7%, respectively).
Similar trends were seen at 30 days for all-cause mortality or hospitalization (6.2% in the recent period vs 5.8% at baseline; aRR, 1.05) despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (59.4% and 59.7%, respectively).
After April 1, 2020, monthly ED visits and the proportion of patients who LWBS varied widely.
The proportion of LWBS visits categorized as emergent on the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale was higher during the recent period (12.9% vs 9.2% in the baseline period), and fewer visits were categorized as semiurgent (22.6% vs 31.9%, respectively). This finding suggested a higher acuity of illness among patients who LWBS in the recent period.
LWBS Visits ‘Not Benign’
Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis examining the risk for all-cause mortality after an LWBS visit were “particularly notable,” the authors wrote, with a 46% higher adjusted risk for death at 7 days and 24% higher adjusted risk at 30 days.
The observational study had several limitations, however. The authors could not draw conclusions regarding direct causes of the increased risk for severe short-term adverse health outcomes after an LWBS ED visit, and residual confounding is possible. Cause-of-death information was not available to generate hypotheses for future studies of potential causes. Furthermore, the findings may not be generalizable to systems without universal access to healthcare.
Nevertheless, the findings are a “concerning signal [and] should prompt interventions to address system- and population-level causes,” the authors wrote.
“Unfortunately, because of politics, since 2020, ED closures in Ontario have become more and more common and seem to be affecting more and more Ontarians,” said McNaughton. “It would be surprising if ED closure didn’t play some role in our findings.”
She added, “It is important to note that people in our study were relatively young, with a median age in their 40s; this makes our findings all the more concerning. Clinicians should be aware that LWBS ED visits are not necessarily benign, particularly when rates of LWBS ED visits are high.”
Unanswered Questions
The study raised the following questions that the authors are or will be investigating, according to McNaughton:
- Which patients are at greatest risk for bad outcomes if they leave the ED without being seen, and why?
- How much of the findings might be related to recent ED closures, longer ED wait times, or other factors? Are there geographic variations in risk?
- What can be done in the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits, and what can be changed outside the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits? For example, what can hospitals do to reduce boarding in the ED? If patients leave without being seen, should they be contacted to try to meet their health needs in other ways?
- What worked in terms of maintaining access to outpatient medical care, despite the considerable disruptions starting in 2020, and how can continued success be ensured?
To address the current situation, McNaughton said, “We need consistent, predictable, and sustained investment in our public healthcare system. We need long-term, consistent funding for primary care, ED care, as well as hospital and long-term care.”
“It takes years to recruit and train the teams of people necessary to provide the high-quality medical care that Canadians have a right to. There are no shortcuts,” she concluded.
‘Tragic Situation’
American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) spokesperson Jesse Pines, MD, chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions; clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC; and professor of emergency medicine at Drexel University in Philadelphia, commented on the study for this news organization.
“Similar to what the authors found in their report, LWBS and other metrics — specifically boarding — have progressively increased in the United States, in particular, since the early part of 2021,” he said. “The primary factor in the US driving this, and one that ACEP is trying to address on a national scale, is the boarding of admitted patients.”
When the number of boarded patients increases, there is less space in the ED for new patients, and waits increase, Pines explained. Some patients leave without being seen, and a subset of those patients experience poor outcomes. “It’s a tragic situation that is worsening.”
“Emergency physicians like me always worry when patients leave without being seen,” he said. While some of those patients have self-limited conditions that will improve on their own, “some have critical life-threatening conditions that require care and hospitalization. The worry is that these patients experience poorer outcomes,” Pines said. “The authors showed that this is increasingly the case in Canada. The same is likely true in the US.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. McNaughton and Pines declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Higher rates of leaving the emergency department (ED) without being seen are linked to increased short-term mortality or hospitalization, according to a cohort study in Ontario, Canada.
“We found that after 2020, there was a 14% higher risk for death or hospitalization within 7 days” among patients who left without being seen (LWBS), Candace McNaughton, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and scientist at Sunnybrook Research Institute, both in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.
“When we looked at death by itself, there was a 46% higher risk after 2020,” she said. “Even 30 days after a LWBS ED visit, there was still a 5% increased risk for death/hospitalization and a 24% increased risk for death.”
The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open.
LWBS Rates Increased
Researchers used linked administrative data to analyze temporal trends in monthly rates of ED and LWBS visits for adults in Ontario from 2014 to 2023.
They compared the composite outcome of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization following an LWBS ED visit in April 2022‒March 2023 (recent period) with that following an LWBS ED visit in April 2014‒March 2020 (baseline period), after adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).
In the two periods, patient characteristics were similar across age, sex, neighborhood-level income quartile, history of being unhoused, rurality, CCI, day, time, and mode of arrival. The median age was 40 years for the baseline period and 42 years for the recent period.
Temporal trends showed sustained increases in monthly LWBS rates after 2020, despite fewer monthly ED visits. The rate of LWBS ED visits after April 1, 2020, exceeded the baseline period’s single-month LWBS maximum of 4% in 15 of 36 months.
The rate of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization was 3.4% in the recent period vs 2.9% in the baseline period (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.14), despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (7-day recent and baseline, 38.9% and 39.7%, respectively).
Similar trends were seen at 30 days for all-cause mortality or hospitalization (6.2% in the recent period vs 5.8% at baseline; aRR, 1.05) despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (59.4% and 59.7%, respectively).
After April 1, 2020, monthly ED visits and the proportion of patients who LWBS varied widely.
The proportion of LWBS visits categorized as emergent on the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale was higher during the recent period (12.9% vs 9.2% in the baseline period), and fewer visits were categorized as semiurgent (22.6% vs 31.9%, respectively). This finding suggested a higher acuity of illness among patients who LWBS in the recent period.
LWBS Visits ‘Not Benign’
Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis examining the risk for all-cause mortality after an LWBS visit were “particularly notable,” the authors wrote, with a 46% higher adjusted risk for death at 7 days and 24% higher adjusted risk at 30 days.
The observational study had several limitations, however. The authors could not draw conclusions regarding direct causes of the increased risk for severe short-term adverse health outcomes after an LWBS ED visit, and residual confounding is possible. Cause-of-death information was not available to generate hypotheses for future studies of potential causes. Furthermore, the findings may not be generalizable to systems without universal access to healthcare.
Nevertheless, the findings are a “concerning signal [and] should prompt interventions to address system- and population-level causes,” the authors wrote.
“Unfortunately, because of politics, since 2020, ED closures in Ontario have become more and more common and seem to be affecting more and more Ontarians,” said McNaughton. “It would be surprising if ED closure didn’t play some role in our findings.”
She added, “It is important to note that people in our study were relatively young, with a median age in their 40s; this makes our findings all the more concerning. Clinicians should be aware that LWBS ED visits are not necessarily benign, particularly when rates of LWBS ED visits are high.”
Unanswered Questions
The study raised the following questions that the authors are or will be investigating, according to McNaughton:
- Which patients are at greatest risk for bad outcomes if they leave the ED without being seen, and why?
- How much of the findings might be related to recent ED closures, longer ED wait times, or other factors? Are there geographic variations in risk?
- What can be done in the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits, and what can be changed outside the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits? For example, what can hospitals do to reduce boarding in the ED? If patients leave without being seen, should they be contacted to try to meet their health needs in other ways?
- What worked in terms of maintaining access to outpatient medical care, despite the considerable disruptions starting in 2020, and how can continued success be ensured?
To address the current situation, McNaughton said, “We need consistent, predictable, and sustained investment in our public healthcare system. We need long-term, consistent funding for primary care, ED care, as well as hospital and long-term care.”
“It takes years to recruit and train the teams of people necessary to provide the high-quality medical care that Canadians have a right to. There are no shortcuts,” she concluded.
‘Tragic Situation’
American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) spokesperson Jesse Pines, MD, chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions; clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC; and professor of emergency medicine at Drexel University in Philadelphia, commented on the study for this news organization.
“Similar to what the authors found in their report, LWBS and other metrics — specifically boarding — have progressively increased in the United States, in particular, since the early part of 2021,” he said. “The primary factor in the US driving this, and one that ACEP is trying to address on a national scale, is the boarding of admitted patients.”
When the number of boarded patients increases, there is less space in the ED for new patients, and waits increase, Pines explained. Some patients leave without being seen, and a subset of those patients experience poor outcomes. “It’s a tragic situation that is worsening.”
“Emergency physicians like me always worry when patients leave without being seen,” he said. While some of those patients have self-limited conditions that will improve on their own, “some have critical life-threatening conditions that require care and hospitalization. The worry is that these patients experience poorer outcomes,” Pines said. “The authors showed that this is increasingly the case in Canada. The same is likely true in the US.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. McNaughton and Pines declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Scientific Publications Face Credibility Crisis
The quality and credibility of scientific publications have received increasing scrutiny. Findings from studies by Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García, PhD, from the Department of Business and Marketing at the University of Seville in Spain, highlight growing concerns about the integrity of published research. Insights from the journal Science and the US blog Retraction Watch reveal similar concerns regarding research integrity.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Spurs Low-Quality Submissions
According to a report in Science, journals are inundated with low-quality contributions such as letters and comments generated by AI. Daniel Prevedello, MD, editor in chief of Neurosurgical Review, announced that the journal would temporarily stop accepting these submissions because of their poor quality.
Neurosurgical Review is not the only journal to experience low-quality submissions. In the journal Oral Oncology Reports (Elsevier), comments comprised 70% of the content, whereas in the International Journal of Surgery Open (Wolters Kluwer), they accounted for nearly half. In Neurosurgical Review, letters, comments, and editorials made up 58% of the total content from January to October 2024, compared with only 9% in the previous year.
This trend benefits authors by allowing them to inflate their publication lists with quickly produced contributions that bypass peer review. Publishers may also profit, as many charge fees to publish comments. Additionally, universities and research institutions find this type of content generation useful as more publications can enhance their reputation.
Concerns Over Peer Reviews
The troubling behavior described by Oviedo-García in the journal Scientometrics raises further doubts. An analysis of 263 peer reviews from 37 journals revealed that reviewers often used identical or very similar phrases in their evaluations, regardless of the content. In one case, the reviewer used the same wording in 52 reviews. This suggests that some reviewers read the studies that they are supposed to evaluate only superficially. Such practices can lead to valueless reviews and jeopardize the integrity of scientific literature. “Some other researchers will probably base their future research on these fake reports, which is frightening, especially when it comes to health and medicine,” Oviedo-García stated.
She suspects that the reviewers may have relied on templates to produce their reports quickly. This allowed them to list this work on their resumes for potential career advantages. Some reviewers have reportedly even “requested” the authors of the studies they reviewed to cite their own scientific work.
AI Complicates Peer Review
The process of research and publication has become increasingly challenging in recent years, and more standard and predatory journals allow anyone to publish their work for a fee. Roger W. Byard, MD, PhD, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, explained this trend in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. AI is increasingly being used to generate articles. At international conferences, experts have highlighted claims that AI can complete papers in just a few weeks and dissertations in less than a year. According to the authors of a letter in Critical Care, generative AI is infiltrating the peer review process.
Moreover, the peer review process can be bypassed by publishing research findings on online platforms (eg, preprint servers). Another issue is that some publications have hundreds of authors who can extend their publication list in this manner, even if their contribution to the publication is ambiguous or not substantial.
In a guest article for the Laborjournal, Ulrich Dirnagl, MD, PhD, from the Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, emphasized that the scientific papers have become so complex that two or three experts often cannot thoroughly assess everything presented. The review process is time-consuming and can take several days for reviewers. Currently, very few people have time, especially because it is an unpaid and anonymous task. Dirnagl stated, “the self-correction of science no longer works as it claims.”
The old Russian saying ‘Dowjerjaj, no prowjerjaj: Trust, but verify’ remains a timeless recommendation that is likely to stay relevant for years to come.
This story was translated from Univadis Germany using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The quality and credibility of scientific publications have received increasing scrutiny. Findings from studies by Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García, PhD, from the Department of Business and Marketing at the University of Seville in Spain, highlight growing concerns about the integrity of published research. Insights from the journal Science and the US blog Retraction Watch reveal similar concerns regarding research integrity.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Spurs Low-Quality Submissions
According to a report in Science, journals are inundated with low-quality contributions such as letters and comments generated by AI. Daniel Prevedello, MD, editor in chief of Neurosurgical Review, announced that the journal would temporarily stop accepting these submissions because of their poor quality.
Neurosurgical Review is not the only journal to experience low-quality submissions. In the journal Oral Oncology Reports (Elsevier), comments comprised 70% of the content, whereas in the International Journal of Surgery Open (Wolters Kluwer), they accounted for nearly half. In Neurosurgical Review, letters, comments, and editorials made up 58% of the total content from January to October 2024, compared with only 9% in the previous year.
This trend benefits authors by allowing them to inflate their publication lists with quickly produced contributions that bypass peer review. Publishers may also profit, as many charge fees to publish comments. Additionally, universities and research institutions find this type of content generation useful as more publications can enhance their reputation.
Concerns Over Peer Reviews
The troubling behavior described by Oviedo-García in the journal Scientometrics raises further doubts. An analysis of 263 peer reviews from 37 journals revealed that reviewers often used identical or very similar phrases in their evaluations, regardless of the content. In one case, the reviewer used the same wording in 52 reviews. This suggests that some reviewers read the studies that they are supposed to evaluate only superficially. Such practices can lead to valueless reviews and jeopardize the integrity of scientific literature. “Some other researchers will probably base their future research on these fake reports, which is frightening, especially when it comes to health and medicine,” Oviedo-García stated.
She suspects that the reviewers may have relied on templates to produce their reports quickly. This allowed them to list this work on their resumes for potential career advantages. Some reviewers have reportedly even “requested” the authors of the studies they reviewed to cite their own scientific work.
AI Complicates Peer Review
The process of research and publication has become increasingly challenging in recent years, and more standard and predatory journals allow anyone to publish their work for a fee. Roger W. Byard, MD, PhD, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, explained this trend in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. AI is increasingly being used to generate articles. At international conferences, experts have highlighted claims that AI can complete papers in just a few weeks and dissertations in less than a year. According to the authors of a letter in Critical Care, generative AI is infiltrating the peer review process.
Moreover, the peer review process can be bypassed by publishing research findings on online platforms (eg, preprint servers). Another issue is that some publications have hundreds of authors who can extend their publication list in this manner, even if their contribution to the publication is ambiguous or not substantial.
In a guest article for the Laborjournal, Ulrich Dirnagl, MD, PhD, from the Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, emphasized that the scientific papers have become so complex that two or three experts often cannot thoroughly assess everything presented. The review process is time-consuming and can take several days for reviewers. Currently, very few people have time, especially because it is an unpaid and anonymous task. Dirnagl stated, “the self-correction of science no longer works as it claims.”
The old Russian saying ‘Dowjerjaj, no prowjerjaj: Trust, but verify’ remains a timeless recommendation that is likely to stay relevant for years to come.
This story was translated from Univadis Germany using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The quality and credibility of scientific publications have received increasing scrutiny. Findings from studies by Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García, PhD, from the Department of Business and Marketing at the University of Seville in Spain, highlight growing concerns about the integrity of published research. Insights from the journal Science and the US blog Retraction Watch reveal similar concerns regarding research integrity.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Spurs Low-Quality Submissions
According to a report in Science, journals are inundated with low-quality contributions such as letters and comments generated by AI. Daniel Prevedello, MD, editor in chief of Neurosurgical Review, announced that the journal would temporarily stop accepting these submissions because of their poor quality.
Neurosurgical Review is not the only journal to experience low-quality submissions. In the journal Oral Oncology Reports (Elsevier), comments comprised 70% of the content, whereas in the International Journal of Surgery Open (Wolters Kluwer), they accounted for nearly half. In Neurosurgical Review, letters, comments, and editorials made up 58% of the total content from January to October 2024, compared with only 9% in the previous year.
This trend benefits authors by allowing them to inflate their publication lists with quickly produced contributions that bypass peer review. Publishers may also profit, as many charge fees to publish comments. Additionally, universities and research institutions find this type of content generation useful as more publications can enhance their reputation.
Concerns Over Peer Reviews
The troubling behavior described by Oviedo-García in the journal Scientometrics raises further doubts. An analysis of 263 peer reviews from 37 journals revealed that reviewers often used identical or very similar phrases in their evaluations, regardless of the content. In one case, the reviewer used the same wording in 52 reviews. This suggests that some reviewers read the studies that they are supposed to evaluate only superficially. Such practices can lead to valueless reviews and jeopardize the integrity of scientific literature. “Some other researchers will probably base their future research on these fake reports, which is frightening, especially when it comes to health and medicine,” Oviedo-García stated.
She suspects that the reviewers may have relied on templates to produce their reports quickly. This allowed them to list this work on their resumes for potential career advantages. Some reviewers have reportedly even “requested” the authors of the studies they reviewed to cite their own scientific work.
AI Complicates Peer Review
The process of research and publication has become increasingly challenging in recent years, and more standard and predatory journals allow anyone to publish their work for a fee. Roger W. Byard, MD, PhD, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, explained this trend in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. AI is increasingly being used to generate articles. At international conferences, experts have highlighted claims that AI can complete papers in just a few weeks and dissertations in less than a year. According to the authors of a letter in Critical Care, generative AI is infiltrating the peer review process.
Moreover, the peer review process can be bypassed by publishing research findings on online platforms (eg, preprint servers). Another issue is that some publications have hundreds of authors who can extend their publication list in this manner, even if their contribution to the publication is ambiguous or not substantial.
In a guest article for the Laborjournal, Ulrich Dirnagl, MD, PhD, from the Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, emphasized that the scientific papers have become so complex that two or three experts often cannot thoroughly assess everything presented. The review process is time-consuming and can take several days for reviewers. Currently, very few people have time, especially because it is an unpaid and anonymous task. Dirnagl stated, “the self-correction of science no longer works as it claims.”
The old Russian saying ‘Dowjerjaj, no prowjerjaj: Trust, but verify’ remains a timeless recommendation that is likely to stay relevant for years to come.
This story was translated from Univadis Germany using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CDK 4/6 Blocker Prolongs Survival in HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer
according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.
This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).
Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.
Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).
Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.
Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.
“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.
On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.
But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.
These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.
‘Incredible’ Results
The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”
Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.
Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.
In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.
Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.
Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.
For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.
In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.
The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.
This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).
Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.
Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).
Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.
Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.
“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.
On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.
But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.
These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.
‘Incredible’ Results
The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”
Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.
Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.
In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.
Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.
Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.
For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.
In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.
The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.
This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).
Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.
Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).
Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.
Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.
“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.
On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.
But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.
These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.
‘Incredible’ Results
The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”
Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.
Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.
In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.
Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.
Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.
For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.
In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.
The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SABCS 2024
Dietary Calcium Cuts Colorectal Cancer Risk by 17%
Cancer Research UK (CRUK), which funded the study, said that it demonstrated the benefits of a healthy, balanced diet for lowering cancer risk.
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Incidence rates vary markedly, with higher rates observed in high-income countries. The risk increases for individuals who migrate from low- to high-incidence areas, suggesting that lifestyle and environmental factors contribute to its development.
While alcohol and processed meats are established carcinogens, and red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic, there is a lack of consensus regarding the relationships between other dietary factors and colorectal cancer risk. This uncertainty may be due, at least in part, to relatively few studies giving comprehensive results on all food types, as well as dietary measurement errors, and/or small sample sizes.
Study Tracked 97 Dietary Factors
To address these gaps, the research team, led by the University of Oxford in England, tracked the intake of 97 dietary factors in 542,778 women from 2001 for an average of 16.6 years. During this period 12,251 participants developed colorectal cancer. The women completed detailed dietary questionnaires at baseline, with 7% participating in at least one subsequent 24-hour online dietary assessment.
Women diagnosed with colorectal cancer were generally older, taller, more likely to have a family history of bowel cancer, and have more adverse health behaviors, compared with participants overall.
Calcium Intake Showed the Strongest Protective Association
Relative risks (RR) for colorectal cancer were calculated for intakes of all 97 dietary factors, with significant associations found for 17 of them. Calcium intake showed the strongest protective effect, with each additional 300 mg per day – equivalent to a large glass of milk – associated with a 17% reduced RR.
Six dairy-related factors associated with calcium – dairy milk, yogurt, riboflavin, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium intakes – also demonstrated inverse associations with colorectal cancer risk. Weaker protective effects were noted for breakfast cereal, fruit, wholegrains, carbohydrates, fibre, total sugars, folate, and vitamin C. However, the team commented that these inverse associations might reflect residual confounding from other lifestyle or other dietary factors.
Calcium’s protective role was independent of dairy milk intake. The study, published in Nature Communications, concluded that, while “dairy products help protect against colorectal cancer,” that protection is “driven largely or wholly by calcium.”
Alcohol and Processed Meat Confirmed as Risk Factors
As expected, alcohol showed the reverse association, with each additional 20 g daily – equivalent to one large glass of wine – associated with a 15% RR increase. Weaker associations were seen for the combined category of red and processed meat, with each additional 30 g per day associated with an 8% increased RR for colorectal cancer. This association was minimally affected by diet and lifestyle factors.
Commenting to the Science Media Centre (SMC), Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, England, said: “One theory is that the calcium may bind to free bile acids in the gut, preventing the harmful effects of free bile acids on gut mucosa.” However, the lactose content in milk also has effects on large bowel microflora, which may in turn affect risk.
Also commenting to the SMC, David Nunan, senior research fellow at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, who was not involved in the study, cautioned that the findings were subject to the bias inherent in observational studies. “These biases often inflate the estimated associations compared to controlled experiments,” he said. Nunan advised caution in interpreting the findings, as more robust research, such as randomized controlled trials, would be needed to establish causation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer Research UK (CRUK), which funded the study, said that it demonstrated the benefits of a healthy, balanced diet for lowering cancer risk.
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Incidence rates vary markedly, with higher rates observed in high-income countries. The risk increases for individuals who migrate from low- to high-incidence areas, suggesting that lifestyle and environmental factors contribute to its development.
While alcohol and processed meats are established carcinogens, and red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic, there is a lack of consensus regarding the relationships between other dietary factors and colorectal cancer risk. This uncertainty may be due, at least in part, to relatively few studies giving comprehensive results on all food types, as well as dietary measurement errors, and/or small sample sizes.
Study Tracked 97 Dietary Factors
To address these gaps, the research team, led by the University of Oxford in England, tracked the intake of 97 dietary factors in 542,778 women from 2001 for an average of 16.6 years. During this period 12,251 participants developed colorectal cancer. The women completed detailed dietary questionnaires at baseline, with 7% participating in at least one subsequent 24-hour online dietary assessment.
Women diagnosed with colorectal cancer were generally older, taller, more likely to have a family history of bowel cancer, and have more adverse health behaviors, compared with participants overall.
Calcium Intake Showed the Strongest Protective Association
Relative risks (RR) for colorectal cancer were calculated for intakes of all 97 dietary factors, with significant associations found for 17 of them. Calcium intake showed the strongest protective effect, with each additional 300 mg per day – equivalent to a large glass of milk – associated with a 17% reduced RR.
Six dairy-related factors associated with calcium – dairy milk, yogurt, riboflavin, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium intakes – also demonstrated inverse associations with colorectal cancer risk. Weaker protective effects were noted for breakfast cereal, fruit, wholegrains, carbohydrates, fibre, total sugars, folate, and vitamin C. However, the team commented that these inverse associations might reflect residual confounding from other lifestyle or other dietary factors.
Calcium’s protective role was independent of dairy milk intake. The study, published in Nature Communications, concluded that, while “dairy products help protect against colorectal cancer,” that protection is “driven largely or wholly by calcium.”
Alcohol and Processed Meat Confirmed as Risk Factors
As expected, alcohol showed the reverse association, with each additional 20 g daily – equivalent to one large glass of wine – associated with a 15% RR increase. Weaker associations were seen for the combined category of red and processed meat, with each additional 30 g per day associated with an 8% increased RR for colorectal cancer. This association was minimally affected by diet and lifestyle factors.
Commenting to the Science Media Centre (SMC), Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, England, said: “One theory is that the calcium may bind to free bile acids in the gut, preventing the harmful effects of free bile acids on gut mucosa.” However, the lactose content in milk also has effects on large bowel microflora, which may in turn affect risk.
Also commenting to the SMC, David Nunan, senior research fellow at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, who was not involved in the study, cautioned that the findings were subject to the bias inherent in observational studies. “These biases often inflate the estimated associations compared to controlled experiments,” he said. Nunan advised caution in interpreting the findings, as more robust research, such as randomized controlled trials, would be needed to establish causation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer Research UK (CRUK), which funded the study, said that it demonstrated the benefits of a healthy, balanced diet for lowering cancer risk.
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Incidence rates vary markedly, with higher rates observed in high-income countries. The risk increases for individuals who migrate from low- to high-incidence areas, suggesting that lifestyle and environmental factors contribute to its development.
While alcohol and processed meats are established carcinogens, and red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic, there is a lack of consensus regarding the relationships between other dietary factors and colorectal cancer risk. This uncertainty may be due, at least in part, to relatively few studies giving comprehensive results on all food types, as well as dietary measurement errors, and/or small sample sizes.
Study Tracked 97 Dietary Factors
To address these gaps, the research team, led by the University of Oxford in England, tracked the intake of 97 dietary factors in 542,778 women from 2001 for an average of 16.6 years. During this period 12,251 participants developed colorectal cancer. The women completed detailed dietary questionnaires at baseline, with 7% participating in at least one subsequent 24-hour online dietary assessment.
Women diagnosed with colorectal cancer were generally older, taller, more likely to have a family history of bowel cancer, and have more adverse health behaviors, compared with participants overall.
Calcium Intake Showed the Strongest Protective Association
Relative risks (RR) for colorectal cancer were calculated for intakes of all 97 dietary factors, with significant associations found for 17 of them. Calcium intake showed the strongest protective effect, with each additional 300 mg per day – equivalent to a large glass of milk – associated with a 17% reduced RR.
Six dairy-related factors associated with calcium – dairy milk, yogurt, riboflavin, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium intakes – also demonstrated inverse associations with colorectal cancer risk. Weaker protective effects were noted for breakfast cereal, fruit, wholegrains, carbohydrates, fibre, total sugars, folate, and vitamin C. However, the team commented that these inverse associations might reflect residual confounding from other lifestyle or other dietary factors.
Calcium’s protective role was independent of dairy milk intake. The study, published in Nature Communications, concluded that, while “dairy products help protect against colorectal cancer,” that protection is “driven largely or wholly by calcium.”
Alcohol and Processed Meat Confirmed as Risk Factors
As expected, alcohol showed the reverse association, with each additional 20 g daily – equivalent to one large glass of wine – associated with a 15% RR increase. Weaker associations were seen for the combined category of red and processed meat, with each additional 30 g per day associated with an 8% increased RR for colorectal cancer. This association was minimally affected by diet and lifestyle factors.
Commenting to the Science Media Centre (SMC), Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, England, said: “One theory is that the calcium may bind to free bile acids in the gut, preventing the harmful effects of free bile acids on gut mucosa.” However, the lactose content in milk also has effects on large bowel microflora, which may in turn affect risk.
Also commenting to the SMC, David Nunan, senior research fellow at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, who was not involved in the study, cautioned that the findings were subject to the bias inherent in observational studies. “These biases often inflate the estimated associations compared to controlled experiments,” he said. Nunan advised caution in interpreting the findings, as more robust research, such as randomized controlled trials, would be needed to establish causation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE COMMUNICATIONS