Clinical Topics & News

Taking a brief walk after eating can help lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, according to a recent study published in Sports Medicine (2022 Aug;52:1765-87).

Light walking after a meal – even for 2-5 minutes – can reduce blood sugar and insulin levels, the researchers found.

Blood sugar levels spike after eating, and the insulin produced to control them can lead to diabetes and cardiovascular issues, the researchers explained.

“With standing and walking, there are contractions of your muscles” that use glucose and lower blood sugar levels, Aidan Buffey, the lead study author and a PhD student in physical education and sport sciences at the University of Limerick (Ireland), told The Times.

“If you can do physical activity before the glucose peak, typically 60-90 minutes [after eating], that is when you’re going to have the benefit of not having the glucose spike,” he said.

Mr. Buffey and colleagues looked at seven studies to understand what would happen if you used standing or easy walking to interrupt prolonged sitting.

In five of the studies, none of the participants had prediabetes or type 2 diabetes. The other two studies included people with and without diabetes. The people in the studies were asked to either stand or walk for 2-5 minutes every 20-30 minutes over the course of a full day.

All seven studies showed that standing after a meal is better than sitting, and taking a short walk offered even better health benefits. Those who stood up for a short period of time after a meal had improved blood sugar levels but not insulin, while those who took a brief walk after a meal had lower blood sugar and insulin levels. Those who walked also had blood sugar levels that rose and fell more gradually, which is critical for managing diabetes.

Going for a walk, doing housework, or finding other ways to move your body within 60-90 minutes after eating could offer the best results, the study authors concluded.

These “mini-walks” could also be useful during the workday to break up prolonged periods of sitting at a desk.

“People are not going to get up and run on a treadmill or run around the office,” Mr. Buffey told The New York Times.

But making mini-walks a normal thing during the workday could be easy and acceptable at the office, he said. Even if people can’t take walks, standing up will help somewhat.

“Each small thing you do will have benefits, even if it is a small step,” Kershaw Patel, MD, a preventive cardiologist at Houston Methodist Hospital, told the newspaper. Dr. Patel wasn’t involved with the study.

“It’s a gradual effect of more activity, better health,” he said. “Each incremental step, each incremental stand or brisk walk appears to have a benefit.”

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

Taking a brief walk after eating can help lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, according to a recent study published in Sports Medicine (2022 Aug;52:1765-87).

Light walking after a meal – even for 2-5 minutes – can reduce blood sugar and insulin levels, the researchers found.

Blood sugar levels spike after eating, and the insulin produced to control them can lead to diabetes and cardiovascular issues, the researchers explained.

“With standing and walking, there are contractions of your muscles” that use glucose and lower blood sugar levels, Aidan Buffey, the lead study author and a PhD student in physical education and sport sciences at the University of Limerick (Ireland), told The Times.

“If you can do physical activity before the glucose peak, typically 60-90 minutes [after eating], that is when you’re going to have the benefit of not having the glucose spike,” he said.

Mr. Buffey and colleagues looked at seven studies to understand what would happen if you used standing or easy walking to interrupt prolonged sitting.

In five of the studies, none of the participants had prediabetes or type 2 diabetes. The other two studies included people with and without diabetes. The people in the studies were asked to either stand or walk for 2-5 minutes every 20-30 minutes over the course of a full day.

All seven studies showed that standing after a meal is better than sitting, and taking a short walk offered even better health benefits. Those who stood up for a short period of time after a meal had improved blood sugar levels but not insulin, while those who took a brief walk after a meal had lower blood sugar and insulin levels. Those who walked also had blood sugar levels that rose and fell more gradually, which is critical for managing diabetes.

Going for a walk, doing housework, or finding other ways to move your body within 60-90 minutes after eating could offer the best results, the study authors concluded.

These “mini-walks” could also be useful during the workday to break up prolonged periods of sitting at a desk.

“People are not going to get up and run on a treadmill or run around the office,” Mr. Buffey told The New York Times.

But making mini-walks a normal thing during the workday could be easy and acceptable at the office, he said. Even if people can’t take walks, standing up will help somewhat.

“Each small thing you do will have benefits, even if it is a small step,” Kershaw Patel, MD, a preventive cardiologist at Houston Methodist Hospital, told the newspaper. Dr. Patel wasn’t involved with the study.

“It’s a gradual effect of more activity, better health,” he said. “Each incremental step, each incremental stand or brisk walk appears to have a benefit.”

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

Taking a brief walk after eating can help lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, according to a recent study published in Sports Medicine (2022 Aug;52:1765-87).

Light walking after a meal – even for 2-5 minutes – can reduce blood sugar and insulin levels, the researchers found.

Blood sugar levels spike after eating, and the insulin produced to control them can lead to diabetes and cardiovascular issues, the researchers explained.

“With standing and walking, there are contractions of your muscles” that use glucose and lower blood sugar levels, Aidan Buffey, the lead study author and a PhD student in physical education and sport sciences at the University of Limerick (Ireland), told The Times.

“If you can do physical activity before the glucose peak, typically 60-90 minutes [after eating], that is when you’re going to have the benefit of not having the glucose spike,” he said.

Mr. Buffey and colleagues looked at seven studies to understand what would happen if you used standing or easy walking to interrupt prolonged sitting.

In five of the studies, none of the participants had prediabetes or type 2 diabetes. The other two studies included people with and without diabetes. The people in the studies were asked to either stand or walk for 2-5 minutes every 20-30 minutes over the course of a full day.

All seven studies showed that standing after a meal is better than sitting, and taking a short walk offered even better health benefits. Those who stood up for a short period of time after a meal had improved blood sugar levels but not insulin, while those who took a brief walk after a meal had lower blood sugar and insulin levels. Those who walked also had blood sugar levels that rose and fell more gradually, which is critical for managing diabetes.

Going for a walk, doing housework, or finding other ways to move your body within 60-90 minutes after eating could offer the best results, the study authors concluded.

These “mini-walks” could also be useful during the workday to break up prolonged periods of sitting at a desk.

“People are not going to get up and run on a treadmill or run around the office,” Mr. Buffey told The New York Times.

But making mini-walks a normal thing during the workday could be easy and acceptable at the office, he said. Even if people can’t take walks, standing up will help somewhat.

“Each small thing you do will have benefits, even if it is a small step,” Kershaw Patel, MD, a preventive cardiologist at Houston Methodist Hospital, told the newspaper. Dr. Patel wasn’t involved with the study.

“It’s a gradual effect of more activity, better health,” he said. “Each incremental step, each incremental stand or brisk walk appears to have a benefit.”

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

COVID-19 is far from done in the United States, with more than 111,000 new cases being recorded a day in the second week of August, according to Johns Hopkins University, and 625 deaths being reported every day. And as that toll grows, experts are worried about a second wave of illnesses from long COVID, a condition that already has affected between 7.7 million and 23 million Americans, according to U.S. government estimates.

“It is evident that long COVID is real, that it already impacts a substantial number of people, and that this number may continue to grow as new infections occur,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a research action plan released Aug. 4.

“We are heading towards a big problem on our hands,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in St. Louis. “It’s like if we are falling in a plane, hurtling towards the ground. It doesn’t matter at what speed we are falling; what matters is that we are all falling, and falling fast. It’s a real problem. We needed to bring attention to this, yesterday,” he said.

Bryan Lau, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and co-lead of a long COVID study there, says whether it’s 5% of the 92 million officially recorded U.S. COVID-19 cases, or 30% – on the higher end of estimates – that means anywhere between 4.5 million and 27 million Americans will have the effects of long COVID.

Other experts put the estimates even higher.

“If we conservatively assume 100 million working-age adults have been infected, that implies 10 to 33 million may have long COVID,” Alice Burns, PhD, associate director for the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, wrote in an analysis.

And even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says only a fraction of cases have been recorded.

That, in turn, means tens of millions of people who struggle to work, to get to school, and to take care of their families – and who will be making demands on an already stressed U.S. health care system.

The HHS said in its Aug. 4 report that long COVID could keep 1 million people a day out of work, with a loss of $50 billion in annual pay.

Dr. Lau said health workers and policymakers are woefully unprepared.

“If you have a family unit, and the mom or dad can’t work, or has trouble taking their child to activities, where does the question of support come into play? Where is there potential for food issues, or housing issues?” he asked. “I see the potential for the burden to be extremely large in that capacity.”

Dr. Lau said he has yet to see any strong estimates of how many cases of long COVID might develop. Because a person has to get COVID-19 to ultimately get long COVID, the two are linked. In other words, as COVID-19 cases rise, so will cases of long COVID, and vice versa.

Evidence from the Kaiser Family Foundation analysis suggests a significant impact on employment: Surveys showed more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before becoming infected are either out of work or working fewer hours. Conditions associated with long COVID – such as fatigue, malaise, or problems concentrating – limit people’s ability to work, even if they have jobs that allow for accommodations.

Two surveys of people with long COVID who had worked before becoming infected showed that between 22% and 27% of them were out of work after getting long COVID. In comparison, among all working-age adults in 2019, only 7% were out of work. Given the sheer number of working-age adults with long COVID, the effects on employment may be profound and are likely to involve more people over time. One study estimates that long COVID already accounts for 15% of unfilled jobs.

The most severe symptoms of long COVID include brain fog and heart complications, known to persist for weeks for months after a COVID-19 infection.

A study from the University of Norway published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found 53% of people tested had at least one symptom of thinking problems 13 months after infection with COVID-19. According to the HHS’ latest report on long COVID, people with thinking problems, heart conditions, mobility issues, and other symptoms are going to need a considerable amount of care. Many will need lengthy periods of rehabilitation.

Dr. Al-Aly worries that long COVID has already severely affected the labor force and the job market, all while burdening the country’s health care system.

“While there are variations in how individuals respond and cope with long COVID, the unifying thread is that with the level of disability it causes, more people will be struggling to keep up with the demands of the workforce and more people will be out on disability than ever before,” he said.

Studies from Johns Hopkins and the University of Washington estimate that 5%-30% of people could get long COVID in the future. Projections beyond that are hazy.

“So far, all the studies we have done on long COVID have been reactionary. Much of the activism around long COVID has been patient led. We are seeing more and more people with lasting symptoms. We need our research to catch up,” Dr. Lau said.

Theo Vos, MD, PhD, professor of health sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, said the main reasons for the huge range of predictions are the variety of methods used, as well as differences in sample size. Also, much long COVID data is self-reported, making it difficult for epidemiologists to track.

“With self-reported data, you can’t plug people into a machine and say this is what they have or this is what they don’t have. At the population level, the only thing you can do is ask questions. There is no systematic way to define long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Vos’s most recent study, which is being peer-reviewed and revised, found that most people with long COVID have symptoms similar to those seen in other autoimmune diseases. But sometimes the immune system can overreact, causing the more severe symptoms, such as brain fog and heart problems, associated with long COVID.

One reason that researchers struggle to come up with numbers, said Dr. Al-Aly, is the rapid rise of new variants. These variants appear to sometimes cause less severe disease than previous ones, but it’s not clear whether that means different risks for long COVID.

“There’s a wide diversity in severity. Someone can have long COVID and be fully functional, while others are not functional at all. We still have a long way to go before we figure out why,” Dr. Lau said.

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

COVID-19 is far from done in the United States, with more than 111,000 new cases being recorded a day in the second week of August, according to Johns Hopkins University, and 625 deaths being reported every day. And as that toll grows, experts are worried about a second wave of illnesses from long COVID, a condition that already has affected between 7.7 million and 23 million Americans, according to U.S. government estimates.

“It is evident that long COVID is real, that it already impacts a substantial number of people, and that this number may continue to grow as new infections occur,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a research action plan released Aug. 4.

“We are heading towards a big problem on our hands,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in St. Louis. “It’s like if we are falling in a plane, hurtling towards the ground. It doesn’t matter at what speed we are falling; what matters is that we are all falling, and falling fast. It’s a real problem. We needed to bring attention to this, yesterday,” he said.

Bryan Lau, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and co-lead of a long COVID study there, says whether it’s 5% of the 92 million officially recorded U.S. COVID-19 cases, or 30% – on the higher end of estimates – that means anywhere between 4.5 million and 27 million Americans will have the effects of long COVID.

Other experts put the estimates even higher.

“If we conservatively assume 100 million working-age adults have been infected, that implies 10 to 33 million may have long COVID,” Alice Burns, PhD, associate director for the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, wrote in an analysis.

And even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says only a fraction of cases have been recorded.

That, in turn, means tens of millions of people who struggle to work, to get to school, and to take care of their families – and who will be making demands on an already stressed U.S. health care system.

The HHS said in its Aug. 4 report that long COVID could keep 1 million people a day out of work, with a loss of $50 billion in annual pay.

Dr. Lau said health workers and policymakers are woefully unprepared.

“If you have a family unit, and the mom or dad can’t work, or has trouble taking their child to activities, where does the question of support come into play? Where is there potential for food issues, or housing issues?” he asked. “I see the potential for the burden to be extremely large in that capacity.”

Dr. Lau said he has yet to see any strong estimates of how many cases of long COVID might develop. Because a person has to get COVID-19 to ultimately get long COVID, the two are linked. In other words, as COVID-19 cases rise, so will cases of long COVID, and vice versa.

Evidence from the Kaiser Family Foundation analysis suggests a significant impact on employment: Surveys showed more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before becoming infected are either out of work or working fewer hours. Conditions associated with long COVID – such as fatigue, malaise, or problems concentrating – limit people’s ability to work, even if they have jobs that allow for accommodations.

Two surveys of people with long COVID who had worked before becoming infected showed that between 22% and 27% of them were out of work after getting long COVID. In comparison, among all working-age adults in 2019, only 7% were out of work. Given the sheer number of working-age adults with long COVID, the effects on employment may be profound and are likely to involve more people over time. One study estimates that long COVID already accounts for 15% of unfilled jobs.

The most severe symptoms of long COVID include brain fog and heart complications, known to persist for weeks for months after a COVID-19 infection.

A study from the University of Norway published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found 53% of people tested had at least one symptom of thinking problems 13 months after infection with COVID-19. According to the HHS’ latest report on long COVID, people with thinking problems, heart conditions, mobility issues, and other symptoms are going to need a considerable amount of care. Many will need lengthy periods of rehabilitation.

Dr. Al-Aly worries that long COVID has already severely affected the labor force and the job market, all while burdening the country’s health care system.

“While there are variations in how individuals respond and cope with long COVID, the unifying thread is that with the level of disability it causes, more people will be struggling to keep up with the demands of the workforce and more people will be out on disability than ever before,” he said.

Studies from Johns Hopkins and the University of Washington estimate that 5%-30% of people could get long COVID in the future. Projections beyond that are hazy.

“So far, all the studies we have done on long COVID have been reactionary. Much of the activism around long COVID has been patient led. We are seeing more and more people with lasting symptoms. We need our research to catch up,” Dr. Lau said.

Theo Vos, MD, PhD, professor of health sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, said the main reasons for the huge range of predictions are the variety of methods used, as well as differences in sample size. Also, much long COVID data is self-reported, making it difficult for epidemiologists to track.

“With self-reported data, you can’t plug people into a machine and say this is what they have or this is what they don’t have. At the population level, the only thing you can do is ask questions. There is no systematic way to define long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Vos’s most recent study, which is being peer-reviewed and revised, found that most people with long COVID have symptoms similar to those seen in other autoimmune diseases. But sometimes the immune system can overreact, causing the more severe symptoms, such as brain fog and heart problems, associated with long COVID.

One reason that researchers struggle to come up with numbers, said Dr. Al-Aly, is the rapid rise of new variants. These variants appear to sometimes cause less severe disease than previous ones, but it’s not clear whether that means different risks for long COVID.

“There’s a wide diversity in severity. Someone can have long COVID and be fully functional, while others are not functional at all. We still have a long way to go before we figure out why,” Dr. Lau said.

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

COVID-19 is far from done in the United States, with more than 111,000 new cases being recorded a day in the second week of August, according to Johns Hopkins University, and 625 deaths being reported every day. And as that toll grows, experts are worried about a second wave of illnesses from long COVID, a condition that already has affected between 7.7 million and 23 million Americans, according to U.S. government estimates.

“It is evident that long COVID is real, that it already impacts a substantial number of people, and that this number may continue to grow as new infections occur,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a research action plan released Aug. 4.

“We are heading towards a big problem on our hands,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in St. Louis. “It’s like if we are falling in a plane, hurtling towards the ground. It doesn’t matter at what speed we are falling; what matters is that we are all falling, and falling fast. It’s a real problem. We needed to bring attention to this, yesterday,” he said.

Bryan Lau, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and co-lead of a long COVID study there, says whether it’s 5% of the 92 million officially recorded U.S. COVID-19 cases, or 30% – on the higher end of estimates – that means anywhere between 4.5 million and 27 million Americans will have the effects of long COVID.

Other experts put the estimates even higher.

“If we conservatively assume 100 million working-age adults have been infected, that implies 10 to 33 million may have long COVID,” Alice Burns, PhD, associate director for the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, wrote in an analysis.

And even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says only a fraction of cases have been recorded.

That, in turn, means tens of millions of people who struggle to work, to get to school, and to take care of their families – and who will be making demands on an already stressed U.S. health care system.

The HHS said in its Aug. 4 report that long COVID could keep 1 million people a day out of work, with a loss of $50 billion in annual pay.

Dr. Lau said health workers and policymakers are woefully unprepared.

“If you have a family unit, and the mom or dad can’t work, or has trouble taking their child to activities, where does the question of support come into play? Where is there potential for food issues, or housing issues?” he asked. “I see the potential for the burden to be extremely large in that capacity.”

Dr. Lau said he has yet to see any strong estimates of how many cases of long COVID might develop. Because a person has to get COVID-19 to ultimately get long COVID, the two are linked. In other words, as COVID-19 cases rise, so will cases of long COVID, and vice versa.

Evidence from the Kaiser Family Foundation analysis suggests a significant impact on employment: Surveys showed more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before becoming infected are either out of work or working fewer hours. Conditions associated with long COVID – such as fatigue, malaise, or problems concentrating – limit people’s ability to work, even if they have jobs that allow for accommodations.

Two surveys of people with long COVID who had worked before becoming infected showed that between 22% and 27% of them were out of work after getting long COVID. In comparison, among all working-age adults in 2019, only 7% were out of work. Given the sheer number of working-age adults with long COVID, the effects on employment may be profound and are likely to involve more people over time. One study estimates that long COVID already accounts for 15% of unfilled jobs.

The most severe symptoms of long COVID include brain fog and heart complications, known to persist for weeks for months after a COVID-19 infection.

A study from the University of Norway published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found 53% of people tested had at least one symptom of thinking problems 13 months after infection with COVID-19. According to the HHS’ latest report on long COVID, people with thinking problems, heart conditions, mobility issues, and other symptoms are going to need a considerable amount of care. Many will need lengthy periods of rehabilitation.

Dr. Al-Aly worries that long COVID has already severely affected the labor force and the job market, all while burdening the country’s health care system.

“While there are variations in how individuals respond and cope with long COVID, the unifying thread is that with the level of disability it causes, more people will be struggling to keep up with the demands of the workforce and more people will be out on disability than ever before,” he said.

Studies from Johns Hopkins and the University of Washington estimate that 5%-30% of people could get long COVID in the future. Projections beyond that are hazy.

“So far, all the studies we have done on long COVID have been reactionary. Much of the activism around long COVID has been patient led. We are seeing more and more people with lasting symptoms. We need our research to catch up,” Dr. Lau said.

Theo Vos, MD, PhD, professor of health sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, said the main reasons for the huge range of predictions are the variety of methods used, as well as differences in sample size. Also, much long COVID data is self-reported, making it difficult for epidemiologists to track.

“With self-reported data, you can’t plug people into a machine and say this is what they have or this is what they don’t have. At the population level, the only thing you can do is ask questions. There is no systematic way to define long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Vos’s most recent study, which is being peer-reviewed and revised, found that most people with long COVID have symptoms similar to those seen in other autoimmune diseases. But sometimes the immune system can overreact, causing the more severe symptoms, such as brain fog and heart problems, associated with long COVID.

One reason that researchers struggle to come up with numbers, said Dr. Al-Aly, is the rapid rise of new variants. These variants appear to sometimes cause less severe disease than previous ones, but it’s not clear whether that means different risks for long COVID.

“There’s a wide diversity in severity. Someone can have long COVID and be fully functional, while others are not functional at all. We still have a long way to go before we figure out why,” Dr. Lau said.

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

Although moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer, its adaptation remains limited in the United States.^1,2 MHRT theoretically exploits α/β ratio differences between the prostate (1.5 Gy), bladder (5-10 Gy), and rectum (3 Gy), thereby reducing late treatment-related adverse effects compared with those of conventional fractionation at biologically equivalent doses.^3-8 Multiple randomized noninferiority trials have demonstrated equivalent outcomes between MHRT and conventional fraction with no appreciable increase in patient-reported toxicity.^9-14 Although these studies have led to the acceptance of MHRT as a standard treatment, the majority of these trials involve individuals with low- and intermediate-risk disease.

There are less phase 3 data addressing MHRT for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC).^10,12,14-17 Only 2 studies examined predominately high-risk populations, accounting for 83 and 292 patients, respectively.^15,16 Additional phase 3 trials with small proportions of high-risk patients (n = 126, 12%; n = 53, 35%) offer limited additional information regarding clinical outcomes and toxicity rates specific to high-risk disease.^10-12 Numerous phase 1 and 2 studies report various field designs and fractionation plans for MHRT in the context of high-risk disease, although the applicability of these data to off-trial populations remains limited.^18-20

Furthermore, African American individuals are underrepresented in the trials establishing the role of MHRT despite higher rates of prostate cancer incidence, more advanced disease stage at diagnosis, and higher rates of prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) when compared with White patients.²¹ Racial disparities across patients with prostate cancer and their management are multifactorial across health care literacy, education level, access to care (including transportation issues), and issues of adherence and distrust.^22-25 Correlation of patient race to prostate cancer outcomes varies greatly across health care systems, with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) equal access system providing robust mental health services and transportation services for some patients, while demonstrating similar rates of stage-adjusted PCSS between African American and White patients across a broad range of treatment modalities.^26-28 Given the paucity of data exploring outcomes following MHRT for African American patients with HRPC, the present analysis provides long-term clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles for an off-trial majority African American population with HRPC treated with MHRT within the VA.

Methods

Records were retrospectively reviewed under an institutional review board–approved protocol for all patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT at the Durham Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in North Carolina between November 2008 and August 2018. Exclusion criteria included < 12 months of follow-up or elective nodal irradiation. Demographic variables obtained included age at diagnosis, race, clinical T stage, pre-MHRT prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason grade group at diagnosis, favorable vs unfavorable high-risk disease, pre-MHRT international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and pre-MHRT urinary medication usage (yes/no).²⁹

Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was initiated 6 to 8 weeks before MHRT unless medically contraindicated per the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. Patients generally received 18 to 24 months of ADT, with those with favorable HRPC (ie, T1c disease with either Gleason 4+4 and PSA < 10 mg/mL or Gleason 3+3 and PSA > 20 ng/mL) receiving 6 months after 2015.²⁹ Patients were simulated supine in either standard or custom immobilization with a full bladder and empty rectum. MHRT fractionation plans included 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction and 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction. Radiotherapy targets included the prostate and seminal vesicles without elective nodal coverage per institutional practice. Treatments were delivered following image guidance, either prostate matching with cone beam computed tomography or fiducial matching with kilo voltage imaging. All patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy. For plans delivering 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction, constraints included bladder V (volume receiving) 70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 15%, V40 ≤ 35%, rectum V70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 10%, V40 ≤ 35%, femoral heads maximum point dose ≤ 40 Gy, penile bulb mean dose ≤ 50 Gy, and small bowel V40 ≤ 1%. For plans delivering 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction, constraints included rectum V57 ≤ 15%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, bladder V60 ≤ 5%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, and femoral heads V43 ≤ 5%.

Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5.0, with acute toxicity defined as on-treatment < 3 months following completion of MHRT. Late toxicity was defined as ≥ 3 months following completion of MHRT. Individuals were seen in follow-up at 6 weeks and 3 months with PSA and testosterone after MHRT completion, then every 6 to 12 months for 5 years and annually thereafter. Each follow-up visit included history, physical examination, IPSS, and CTCAE grading for GI and GU toxicity.

The Wilcoxon rank sum test and χ² test were used to compare differences in demographic data, dosimetric parameters, and frequency of toxicity events with respect to patient race. Clinical endpoints including biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS; defined by Phoenix criteria as 2.0 above PSA nadir), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), PCSS, and overall survival (OS) were estimated from time of radiotherapy completion by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between African American and White race by log-rank testing.³⁰ Late GI and GU toxicity-free survival were estimated by Kaplan-Meier plots and compared between African American and White patients by the log-rank test. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4.

Results

We identified 143 patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT between November 2008 and August 2018 (Table 1). Mean age was 65 years (range, 36-80 years); 57% were African American men. Eighty percent of individuals had unfavorable high-risk disease. Median (IQR) PSA was 14.4 (7.8-28.6). Twenty-six percent had grade group 1-3 disease, 47% had grade group 4 disease, and 27% had grade group 5 disease. African American patients had significantly lower pre-MHRT IPSS scores than White patients (mean IPSS, 11 vs 14, respectively; P = .02) despite similar rates of preradiotherapy urinary medication usage (66% and 66%, respectively).

Eighty-six percent received 70 Gy over 28 fractions, with institutional protocol shifting to 60 Gy over 20 fractions (14%) in June 2017. The median (IQR) duration of radiotherapy was 39 (38-42) days, with 97% of individuals undergoing ADT for a median (IQR) duration of 24 (24-36) months. The median follow-up time was 38 months, with 57 (40%) patients followed for at least 60 months.

Grade 3 GI and GU acute toxicity events were observed in 1% and 4% of all individuals, respectively (Table 2). No acute GI or GU grade 4+ events were observed. No significant differences in acute GU or GI toxicity were observed between African American and White patients.

Discussion

In this study, we reported acute and late GI and GU toxicity rates as well as clinical outcomes for a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access health care environment. We found that MHRT was well tolerated with high rates of biochemical control, PCSS, and OS. Additionally, outcomes were not significantly different across patient race. To our knowledge, this is the first report of MHRT for HRPC in a majority African American population.

We found that MHRT was an effective treatment for patients with HRPC, in particular those with unfavorable high-risk disease. While prior prospective and randomized studies have investigated the use of MHRT, our series was larger than most and had a predominately unfavorable high-risk population.^12,15-17 Our biochemical and PCSS rates compare favorably with those of HRPC trial populations, particularly given the high proportion of unfavorable high-risk disease.^12,15,16 Despite similar rates of biochemical control, OS was lower in the present cohort than in HRPC trial populations, even with a younger median age at diagnosis. The similarly high rates of non–HRPC-related death across race may reflect differences in baseline comorbidities compared with trial populations as well as reported differences between individuals in the VA and the private sector.³¹ This suggests that MHRT can be an effective treatment for patients with unfavorable HRPC.

We did not find any differences in outcomes between African American and White individuals with HRPC treated with MHRT. Furthermore, our study demonstrates long-term rates of BRFS and PCSS in a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC that are comparable with those of prior randomized MHRT studies in high-risk, predominately White populations.^12,15,16 Prior reports have found that African American men with HRPC may be at increased risk for inferior clinical outcomes due to a number of socioeconomic, biologic, and cultural mediators.^26,27,32 Such individuals may disproportionally benefit from shorter treatment courses that improve access to radiotherapy, a well-documented disparity for African American men with localized prostate cancer.^33-36 The VA is an ideal system for studying racial disparities within prostate cancer, as accessibility of mental health and transportation services, income, and insurance status are not barriers to preventative or acute care.³⁷ Our results are concordant with those previously seen for African American patients with prostate cancer seen in the VA, which similarly demonstrate equal outcomes with those of other races.^28,36 Incorporation of the earlier mentioned VA services into oncologic care across other health care systems could better characterize determinants of racial disparities in prostate cancer, including the prognostic significance of shortening treatment duration and number of patient visits via MHRT.

Limitations

This study has several inherent limitations. While the size of the current HRPC cohort is notably larger than similar populations within the majority of phase 3 MHRT trials, these data derive from a single VA hospital. It is unclear whether these outcomes would be representative in a similar high-risk population receiving care outside of the VA equal access system. Follow-up data beyond 5 years was available for less than half of patients, partially due to nonprostate cancer–related mortality at a higher rate than observed in HRPC trial populations.^12,15,16 Furthermore, all GI toxicity events were exclusively physician reported, and GU toxicity reporting was limited in the off-trial setting with not all patients routinely completing IPSS questionnaires following MHRT completion. However, all patients were treated similarly, and radiation quality was verified over the treatment period with mandated accreditation, frequent standardized output checks, and systematic treatment review.³⁹

Conclusions

Patients with HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access, off-trial setting demonstrated favorable rates of biochemical control with acceptable rates of acute and late GI and GU toxicities. Clinical outcomes, including biochemical control, were not significantly different between African American and White patients, which may reflect equal access to care within the VA irrespective of income and insurance status. Incorporating VA services, such as access to primary care, mental health services, and transportation across other health care systems may aid in characterizing and mitigating racial and gender disparities in oncologic care.  

Acknowledgments

Portions of this work were presented at the November 2020 ASTRO conference. ⁴⁰

Although moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer, its adaptation remains limited in the United States.^1,2 MHRT theoretically exploits α/β ratio differences between the prostate (1.5 Gy), bladder (5-10 Gy), and rectum (3 Gy), thereby reducing late treatment-related adverse effects compared with those of conventional fractionation at biologically equivalent doses.^3-8 Multiple randomized noninferiority trials have demonstrated equivalent outcomes between MHRT and conventional fraction with no appreciable increase in patient-reported toxicity.^9-14 Although these studies have led to the acceptance of MHRT as a standard treatment, the majority of these trials involve individuals with low- and intermediate-risk disease.

There are less phase 3 data addressing MHRT for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC).^10,12,14-17 Only 2 studies examined predominately high-risk populations, accounting for 83 and 292 patients, respectively.^15,16 Additional phase 3 trials with small proportions of high-risk patients (n = 126, 12%; n = 53, 35%) offer limited additional information regarding clinical outcomes and toxicity rates specific to high-risk disease.^10-12 Numerous phase 1 and 2 studies report various field designs and fractionation plans for MHRT in the context of high-risk disease, although the applicability of these data to off-trial populations remains limited.^18-20

Furthermore, African American individuals are underrepresented in the trials establishing the role of MHRT despite higher rates of prostate cancer incidence, more advanced disease stage at diagnosis, and higher rates of prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) when compared with White patients.²¹ Racial disparities across patients with prostate cancer and their management are multifactorial across health care literacy, education level, access to care (including transportation issues), and issues of adherence and distrust.^22-25 Correlation of patient race to prostate cancer outcomes varies greatly across health care systems, with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) equal access system providing robust mental health services and transportation services for some patients, while demonstrating similar rates of stage-adjusted PCSS between African American and White patients across a broad range of treatment modalities.^26-28 Given the paucity of data exploring outcomes following MHRT for African American patients with HRPC, the present analysis provides long-term clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles for an off-trial majority African American population with HRPC treated with MHRT within the VA.

Methods

Records were retrospectively reviewed under an institutional review board–approved protocol for all patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT at the Durham Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in North Carolina between November 2008 and August 2018. Exclusion criteria included < 12 months of follow-up or elective nodal irradiation. Demographic variables obtained included age at diagnosis, race, clinical T stage, pre-MHRT prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason grade group at diagnosis, favorable vs unfavorable high-risk disease, pre-MHRT international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and pre-MHRT urinary medication usage (yes/no).²⁹

Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was initiated 6 to 8 weeks before MHRT unless medically contraindicated per the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. Patients generally received 18 to 24 months of ADT, with those with favorable HRPC (ie, T1c disease with either Gleason 4+4 and PSA < 10 mg/mL or Gleason 3+3 and PSA > 20 ng/mL) receiving 6 months after 2015.²⁹ Patients were simulated supine in either standard or custom immobilization with a full bladder and empty rectum. MHRT fractionation plans included 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction and 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction. Radiotherapy targets included the prostate and seminal vesicles without elective nodal coverage per institutional practice. Treatments were delivered following image guidance, either prostate matching with cone beam computed tomography or fiducial matching with kilo voltage imaging. All patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy. For plans delivering 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction, constraints included bladder V (volume receiving) 70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 15%, V40 ≤ 35%, rectum V70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 10%, V40 ≤ 35%, femoral heads maximum point dose ≤ 40 Gy, penile bulb mean dose ≤ 50 Gy, and small bowel V40 ≤ 1%. For plans delivering 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction, constraints included rectum V57 ≤ 15%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, bladder V60 ≤ 5%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, and femoral heads V43 ≤ 5%.

Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5.0, with acute toxicity defined as on-treatment < 3 months following completion of MHRT. Late toxicity was defined as ≥ 3 months following completion of MHRT. Individuals were seen in follow-up at 6 weeks and 3 months with PSA and testosterone after MHRT completion, then every 6 to 12 months for 5 years and annually thereafter. Each follow-up visit included history, physical examination, IPSS, and CTCAE grading for GI and GU toxicity.

The Wilcoxon rank sum test and χ² test were used to compare differences in demographic data, dosimetric parameters, and frequency of toxicity events with respect to patient race. Clinical endpoints including biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS; defined by Phoenix criteria as 2.0 above PSA nadir), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), PCSS, and overall survival (OS) were estimated from time of radiotherapy completion by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between African American and White race by log-rank testing.³⁰ Late GI and GU toxicity-free survival were estimated by Kaplan-Meier plots and compared between African American and White patients by the log-rank test. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4.

Results

We identified 143 patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT between November 2008 and August 2018 (Table 1). Mean age was 65 years (range, 36-80 years); 57% were African American men. Eighty percent of individuals had unfavorable high-risk disease. Median (IQR) PSA was 14.4 (7.8-28.6). Twenty-six percent had grade group 1-3 disease, 47% had grade group 4 disease, and 27% had grade group 5 disease. African American patients had significantly lower pre-MHRT IPSS scores than White patients (mean IPSS, 11 vs 14, respectively; P = .02) despite similar rates of preradiotherapy urinary medication usage (66% and 66%, respectively).

Eighty-six percent received 70 Gy over 28 fractions, with institutional protocol shifting to 60 Gy over 20 fractions (14%) in June 2017. The median (IQR) duration of radiotherapy was 39 (38-42) days, with 97% of individuals undergoing ADT for a median (IQR) duration of 24 (24-36) months. The median follow-up time was 38 months, with 57 (40%) patients followed for at least 60 months.

Grade 3 GI and GU acute toxicity events were observed in 1% and 4% of all individuals, respectively (Table 2). No acute GI or GU grade 4+ events were observed. No significant differences in acute GU or GI toxicity were observed between African American and White patients.

Discussion

In this study, we reported acute and late GI and GU toxicity rates as well as clinical outcomes for a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access health care environment. We found that MHRT was well tolerated with high rates of biochemical control, PCSS, and OS. Additionally, outcomes were not significantly different across patient race. To our knowledge, this is the first report of MHRT for HRPC in a majority African American population.

We found that MHRT was an effective treatment for patients with HRPC, in particular those with unfavorable high-risk disease. While prior prospective and randomized studies have investigated the use of MHRT, our series was larger than most and had a predominately unfavorable high-risk population.^12,15-17 Our biochemical and PCSS rates compare favorably with those of HRPC trial populations, particularly given the high proportion of unfavorable high-risk disease.^12,15,16 Despite similar rates of biochemical control, OS was lower in the present cohort than in HRPC trial populations, even with a younger median age at diagnosis. The similarly high rates of non–HRPC-related death across race may reflect differences in baseline comorbidities compared with trial populations as well as reported differences between individuals in the VA and the private sector.³¹ This suggests that MHRT can be an effective treatment for patients with unfavorable HRPC.

We did not find any differences in outcomes between African American and White individuals with HRPC treated with MHRT. Furthermore, our study demonstrates long-term rates of BRFS and PCSS in a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC that are comparable with those of prior randomized MHRT studies in high-risk, predominately White populations.^12,15,16 Prior reports have found that African American men with HRPC may be at increased risk for inferior clinical outcomes due to a number of socioeconomic, biologic, and cultural mediators.^26,27,32 Such individuals may disproportionally benefit from shorter treatment courses that improve access to radiotherapy, a well-documented disparity for African American men with localized prostate cancer.^33-36 The VA is an ideal system for studying racial disparities within prostate cancer, as accessibility of mental health and transportation services, income, and insurance status are not barriers to preventative or acute care.³⁷ Our results are concordant with those previously seen for African American patients with prostate cancer seen in the VA, which similarly demonstrate equal outcomes with those of other races.^28,36 Incorporation of the earlier mentioned VA services into oncologic care across other health care systems could better characterize determinants of racial disparities in prostate cancer, including the prognostic significance of shortening treatment duration and number of patient visits via MHRT.

Limitations

This study has several inherent limitations. While the size of the current HRPC cohort is notably larger than similar populations within the majority of phase 3 MHRT trials, these data derive from a single VA hospital. It is unclear whether these outcomes would be representative in a similar high-risk population receiving care outside of the VA equal access system. Follow-up data beyond 5 years was available for less than half of patients, partially due to nonprostate cancer–related mortality at a higher rate than observed in HRPC trial populations.^12,15,16 Furthermore, all GI toxicity events were exclusively physician reported, and GU toxicity reporting was limited in the off-trial setting with not all patients routinely completing IPSS questionnaires following MHRT completion. However, all patients were treated similarly, and radiation quality was verified over the treatment period with mandated accreditation, frequent standardized output checks, and systematic treatment review.³⁹

Conclusions

Patients with HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access, off-trial setting demonstrated favorable rates of biochemical control with acceptable rates of acute and late GI and GU toxicities. Clinical outcomes, including biochemical control, were not significantly different between African American and White patients, which may reflect equal access to care within the VA irrespective of income and insurance status. Incorporating VA services, such as access to primary care, mental health services, and transportation across other health care systems may aid in characterizing and mitigating racial and gender disparities in oncologic care.  

Acknowledgments

Portions of this work were presented at the November 2020 ASTRO conference. ⁴⁰

Although moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer, its adaptation remains limited in the United States.^1,2 MHRT theoretically exploits α/β ratio differences between the prostate (1.5 Gy), bladder (5-10 Gy), and rectum (3 Gy), thereby reducing late treatment-related adverse effects compared with those of conventional fractionation at biologically equivalent doses.^3-8 Multiple randomized noninferiority trials have demonstrated equivalent outcomes between MHRT and conventional fraction with no appreciable increase in patient-reported toxicity.^9-14 Although these studies have led to the acceptance of MHRT as a standard treatment, the majority of these trials involve individuals with low- and intermediate-risk disease.

There are less phase 3 data addressing MHRT for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC).^10,12,14-17 Only 2 studies examined predominately high-risk populations, accounting for 83 and 292 patients, respectively.^15,16 Additional phase 3 trials with small proportions of high-risk patients (n = 126, 12%; n = 53, 35%) offer limited additional information regarding clinical outcomes and toxicity rates specific to high-risk disease.^10-12 Numerous phase 1 and 2 studies report various field designs and fractionation plans for MHRT in the context of high-risk disease, although the applicability of these data to off-trial populations remains limited.^18-20

Furthermore, African American individuals are underrepresented in the trials establishing the role of MHRT despite higher rates of prostate cancer incidence, more advanced disease stage at diagnosis, and higher rates of prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) when compared with White patients.²¹ Racial disparities across patients with prostate cancer and their management are multifactorial across health care literacy, education level, access to care (including transportation issues), and issues of adherence and distrust.^22-25 Correlation of patient race to prostate cancer outcomes varies greatly across health care systems, with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) equal access system providing robust mental health services and transportation services for some patients, while demonstrating similar rates of stage-adjusted PCSS between African American and White patients across a broad range of treatment modalities.^26-28 Given the paucity of data exploring outcomes following MHRT for African American patients with HRPC, the present analysis provides long-term clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles for an off-trial majority African American population with HRPC treated with MHRT within the VA.

Methods

Records were retrospectively reviewed under an institutional review board–approved protocol for all patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT at the Durham Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in North Carolina between November 2008 and August 2018. Exclusion criteria included < 12 months of follow-up or elective nodal irradiation. Demographic variables obtained included age at diagnosis, race, clinical T stage, pre-MHRT prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason grade group at diagnosis, favorable vs unfavorable high-risk disease, pre-MHRT international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and pre-MHRT urinary medication usage (yes/no).²⁹

Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was initiated 6 to 8 weeks before MHRT unless medically contraindicated per the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. Patients generally received 18 to 24 months of ADT, with those with favorable HRPC (ie, T1c disease with either Gleason 4+4 and PSA < 10 mg/mL or Gleason 3+3 and PSA > 20 ng/mL) receiving 6 months after 2015.²⁹ Patients were simulated supine in either standard or custom immobilization with a full bladder and empty rectum. MHRT fractionation plans included 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction and 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction. Radiotherapy targets included the prostate and seminal vesicles without elective nodal coverage per institutional practice. Treatments were delivered following image guidance, either prostate matching with cone beam computed tomography or fiducial matching with kilo voltage imaging. All patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy. For plans delivering 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction, constraints included bladder V (volume receiving) 70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 15%, V40 ≤ 35%, rectum V70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 10%, V40 ≤ 35%, femoral heads maximum point dose ≤ 40 Gy, penile bulb mean dose ≤ 50 Gy, and small bowel V40 ≤ 1%. For plans delivering 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction, constraints included rectum V57 ≤ 15%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, bladder V60 ≤ 5%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, and femoral heads V43 ≤ 5%.

Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5.0, with acute toxicity defined as on-treatment < 3 months following completion of MHRT. Late toxicity was defined as ≥ 3 months following completion of MHRT. Individuals were seen in follow-up at 6 weeks and 3 months with PSA and testosterone after MHRT completion, then every 6 to 12 months for 5 years and annually thereafter. Each follow-up visit included history, physical examination, IPSS, and CTCAE grading for GI and GU toxicity.

The Wilcoxon rank sum test and χ² test were used to compare differences in demographic data, dosimetric parameters, and frequency of toxicity events with respect to patient race. Clinical endpoints including biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS; defined by Phoenix criteria as 2.0 above PSA nadir), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), PCSS, and overall survival (OS) were estimated from time of radiotherapy completion by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between African American and White race by log-rank testing.³⁰ Late GI and GU toxicity-free survival were estimated by Kaplan-Meier plots and compared between African American and White patients by the log-rank test. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4.

Results

We identified 143 patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT between November 2008 and August 2018 (Table 1). Mean age was 65 years (range, 36-80 years); 57% were African American men. Eighty percent of individuals had unfavorable high-risk disease. Median (IQR) PSA was 14.4 (7.8-28.6). Twenty-six percent had grade group 1-3 disease, 47% had grade group 4 disease, and 27% had grade group 5 disease. African American patients had significantly lower pre-MHRT IPSS scores than White patients (mean IPSS, 11 vs 14, respectively; P = .02) despite similar rates of preradiotherapy urinary medication usage (66% and 66%, respectively).

Eighty-six percent received 70 Gy over 28 fractions, with institutional protocol shifting to 60 Gy over 20 fractions (14%) in June 2017. The median (IQR) duration of radiotherapy was 39 (38-42) days, with 97% of individuals undergoing ADT for a median (IQR) duration of 24 (24-36) months. The median follow-up time was 38 months, with 57 (40%) patients followed for at least 60 months.

Grade 3 GI and GU acute toxicity events were observed in 1% and 4% of all individuals, respectively (Table 2). No acute GI or GU grade 4+ events were observed. No significant differences in acute GU or GI toxicity were observed between African American and White patients.

Discussion

In this study, we reported acute and late GI and GU toxicity rates as well as clinical outcomes for a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access health care environment. We found that MHRT was well tolerated with high rates of biochemical control, PCSS, and OS. Additionally, outcomes were not significantly different across patient race. To our knowledge, this is the first report of MHRT for HRPC in a majority African American population.

We found that MHRT was an effective treatment for patients with HRPC, in particular those with unfavorable high-risk disease. While prior prospective and randomized studies have investigated the use of MHRT, our series was larger than most and had a predominately unfavorable high-risk population.^12,15-17 Our biochemical and PCSS rates compare favorably with those of HRPC trial populations, particularly given the high proportion of unfavorable high-risk disease.^12,15,16 Despite similar rates of biochemical control, OS was lower in the present cohort than in HRPC trial populations, even with a younger median age at diagnosis. The similarly high rates of non–HRPC-related death across race may reflect differences in baseline comorbidities compared with trial populations as well as reported differences between individuals in the VA and the private sector.³¹ This suggests that MHRT can be an effective treatment for patients with unfavorable HRPC.

We did not find any differences in outcomes between African American and White individuals with HRPC treated with MHRT. Furthermore, our study demonstrates long-term rates of BRFS and PCSS in a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC that are comparable with those of prior randomized MHRT studies in high-risk, predominately White populations.^12,15,16 Prior reports have found that African American men with HRPC may be at increased risk for inferior clinical outcomes due to a number of socioeconomic, biologic, and cultural mediators.^26,27,32 Such individuals may disproportionally benefit from shorter treatment courses that improve access to radiotherapy, a well-documented disparity for African American men with localized prostate cancer.^33-36 The VA is an ideal system for studying racial disparities within prostate cancer, as accessibility of mental health and transportation services, income, and insurance status are not barriers to preventative or acute care.³⁷ Our results are concordant with those previously seen for African American patients with prostate cancer seen in the VA, which similarly demonstrate equal outcomes with those of other races.^28,36 Incorporation of the earlier mentioned VA services into oncologic care across other health care systems could better characterize determinants of racial disparities in prostate cancer, including the prognostic significance of shortening treatment duration and number of patient visits via MHRT.

Limitations

This study has several inherent limitations. While the size of the current HRPC cohort is notably larger than similar populations within the majority of phase 3 MHRT trials, these data derive from a single VA hospital. It is unclear whether these outcomes would be representative in a similar high-risk population receiving care outside of the VA equal access system. Follow-up data beyond 5 years was available for less than half of patients, partially due to nonprostate cancer–related mortality at a higher rate than observed in HRPC trial populations.^12,15,16 Furthermore, all GI toxicity events were exclusively physician reported, and GU toxicity reporting was limited in the off-trial setting with not all patients routinely completing IPSS questionnaires following MHRT completion. However, all patients were treated similarly, and radiation quality was verified over the treatment period with mandated accreditation, frequent standardized output checks, and systematic treatment review.³⁹

Conclusions

Patients with HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access, off-trial setting demonstrated favorable rates of biochemical control with acceptable rates of acute and late GI and GU toxicities. Clinical outcomes, including biochemical control, were not significantly different between African American and White patients, which may reflect equal access to care within the VA irrespective of income and insurance status. Incorporating VA services, such as access to primary care, mental health services, and transportation across other health care systems may aid in characterizing and mitigating racial and gender disparities in oncologic care.  

Acknowledgments

Portions of this work were presented at the November 2020 ASTRO conference. ⁴⁰

Fewer than one-third of cancer patients pay out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling services.

But even among those who do, the cost is $16 or less, a cohort study shows.

“The findings highlight the relatively low financial costs of genetic counseling, a form of care with potentially substantial implications for cancer treatment,” lead author Mya Roberson, PhD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues explained.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.

Genetic counseling is an important feature of cancer care that can affect treatment decisions and surveillance. But coverage of genetic counseling services varies across insurance types.

To understand the costs to patients, the investigators used data from IBM Watson Health MarketScan to create a cohort of privately insured patients with breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer who had at least one genetic counseling session from 2013 to the end of 2019.

Dr. Roberson and colleagues then calculated out-of-pocket costs – including coinsurance, copayments, and deductibles – and total costs paid on claims for genetic counseling encounters. The cohort included 16,791 patients, the majority of whom had breast cancer.

Although the median insurance payment for genetic counseling encounters was $118 ($58-$211), most patients paid nothing out of pocket for these services. Among the 31% of patients with an out-of-pocket expense, the cost was $16 or less.

Compared with breast cancer patients, men with prostate cancer were 28% more likely to have out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling, which may “reflect a lack of awareness about the medical necessity of genetic counseling,” the authors suggested.

Overall, the study highlights the value of genetic counseling in cancer care.

“Cancer genetic counseling not only promotes informed decision-making about genetic testing and cancer treatment in the era of precision medicine, but it also is a form of low-cost, high-value care,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Roberson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fewer than one-third of cancer patients pay out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling services.

But even among those who do, the cost is $16 or less, a cohort study shows.

“The findings highlight the relatively low financial costs of genetic counseling, a form of care with potentially substantial implications for cancer treatment,” lead author Mya Roberson, PhD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues explained.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.

Genetic counseling is an important feature of cancer care that can affect treatment decisions and surveillance. But coverage of genetic counseling services varies across insurance types.

To understand the costs to patients, the investigators used data from IBM Watson Health MarketScan to create a cohort of privately insured patients with breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer who had at least one genetic counseling session from 2013 to the end of 2019.

Dr. Roberson and colleagues then calculated out-of-pocket costs – including coinsurance, copayments, and deductibles – and total costs paid on claims for genetic counseling encounters. The cohort included 16,791 patients, the majority of whom had breast cancer.

Although the median insurance payment for genetic counseling encounters was $118 ($58-$211), most patients paid nothing out of pocket for these services. Among the 31% of patients with an out-of-pocket expense, the cost was $16 or less.

Compared with breast cancer patients, men with prostate cancer were 28% more likely to have out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling, which may “reflect a lack of awareness about the medical necessity of genetic counseling,” the authors suggested.

Overall, the study highlights the value of genetic counseling in cancer care.

“Cancer genetic counseling not only promotes informed decision-making about genetic testing and cancer treatment in the era of precision medicine, but it also is a form of low-cost, high-value care,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Roberson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fewer than one-third of cancer patients pay out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling services.

But even among those who do, the cost is $16 or less, a cohort study shows.

“The findings highlight the relatively low financial costs of genetic counseling, a form of care with potentially substantial implications for cancer treatment,” lead author Mya Roberson, PhD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues explained.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.

Genetic counseling is an important feature of cancer care that can affect treatment decisions and surveillance. But coverage of genetic counseling services varies across insurance types.

To understand the costs to patients, the investigators used data from IBM Watson Health MarketScan to create a cohort of privately insured patients with breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer who had at least one genetic counseling session from 2013 to the end of 2019.

Dr. Roberson and colleagues then calculated out-of-pocket costs – including coinsurance, copayments, and deductibles – and total costs paid on claims for genetic counseling encounters. The cohort included 16,791 patients, the majority of whom had breast cancer.

Although the median insurance payment for genetic counseling encounters was $118 ($58-$211), most patients paid nothing out of pocket for these services. Among the 31% of patients with an out-of-pocket expense, the cost was $16 or less.

Compared with breast cancer patients, men with prostate cancer were 28% more likely to have out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling, which may “reflect a lack of awareness about the medical necessity of genetic counseling,” the authors suggested.

Overall, the study highlights the value of genetic counseling in cancer care.

“Cancer genetic counseling not only promotes informed decision-making about genetic testing and cancer treatment in the era of precision medicine, but it also is a form of low-cost, high-value care,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Roberson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism for patients with cancer, including those with cancer and COVID-19, have been released by the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC), an academic working group of VTE experts.

“Because patients with cancer have a baseline increased risk of VTE, compared with patients without cancer, the combination of both COVID-19 and cancer – and its effect on VTE risk and treatment – is of concern,” said the authors, led by Dominique Farge, MD, PhD, Nord Universite de Paris.

The updated 2022 ITAC guidelines cover new evidence on the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis, including for patients with cancer and COVID-19, they added.

The new guidelines were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“Cancer-associated VTE remains an important clinical problem, associated with increased morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Farge and colleagues observed.

“The ITAC guidelines’ companion free web-based mobile application will assist the practicing clinician with decision making at various levels to provide optimal care of patients with cancer to treat and prevent VTE,” they emphasized. More information is available at itaccme.com.
 

Cancer patients with COVID

The new section of the guidelines notes that the treatment and prevention of VTE for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain the same as for patients without COVID.

Whether or not cancer patients with COVID-19 are hospitalized, have been discharged, or are ambulatory, they should be assessed for the risk of VTE, as should any other patient. For cancer patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized, pharmacologic prophylaxis should be given at the same dose and anticoagulant type as for hospitalized cancer patients who do not have COVID-19.

Following discharge, VTE prophylaxis is not advised for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and routine primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE for ambulatory patients with COVID-19 is also not recommended, the authors noted.
 

Initial treatment of established VTE

Initial treatment of established VTE for up to 10 days of anticoagulation should include low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) when creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“A regimen of LMWH, taken once per day, is recommended unless a twice-per-day regimen is required because of patients’ characteristics,” the authors noted. These characteristics include a high risk of bleeding, moderate renal failure, and the need for technical intervention, including surgery.

If a twice-a-day regimen is required, only enoxaparin at a dose of 1 mg/kg twice daily can be used, the authors cautioned.

For patients with a low risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or apixaban (Eliquis) can be given in the first 10 days, as well as edoxaban (Lixiana). The latter should be started after at least 5 days of parenteral anticoagulation, provided creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“Unfractionated heparin as well as fondaparinux (GlaxoSmithKline) can be also used for the initial treatment of established VTE when LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants are contraindicated,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Thrombolysis can be considered on a case-by-case basis, although physicians must pay attention to specific contraindications, especially bleeding risk.

“In the initial treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters might be considered when anticoagulant treatment is contraindicated or, in the case of pulmonary embolism, when recurrence occurs under optimal anticoagulation,” the authors noted.
 

Maintenance VTE treatment

For maintenance therapy, which the authors define as early maintenance for up to 6 months and long-term maintenance beyond 6 months, they point out that LMWHs are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of VTE when the creatinine clearance is again at least 30 mL/min.

Any of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) – edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban – is also recommended for the same patients, provided there is no risk of inducing a strong drug-drug interaction or GI absorption is impaired.

However, the DOAs should be used with caution for patients with GI malignancies, especially upper GI cancers, because data show there is an increased risk of GI bleeding with both edoxaban and rivaroxaban.

“LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants should be used for a minimum of 6 months to treat established VTE in patients with cancer,” the authors wrote.

“After 6 months, termination or continuation of anticoagulation (LMWH, direct oral anticoagulants, or vitamin K antagonists) should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio,” they added.
 

Treatment of VTE recurrence

The guideline authors explain that three options can be considered in the event of VTE recurrence. These include an increase in the LMWH dose by 20%-25%, or a switch to a DOA, or, if patients are taking a DOA, a switch to an LMWH. If the patient is taking a vitamin K antagonist, it can be switched to either an LMWH or a DOA.

For treatment of catheter-related thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment is recommended for a minimum of 3 months and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. In this setting, the LMWHs are recommended.

The central venous catheter can be kept in place if it is functional, well positioned, and is not infected, provided there is good resolution of symptoms under close surveillance while anticoagulants are being administered.

In surgically treated patients, the LMWH, given once a day, to patients with a serum creatinine concentration of at least 30 mL/min can be used to prevent VTE. Alternatively, VTE can be prevented by the use low-dose unfractionated heparin, given three times a day.

“Pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 2-12 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days,” Dr. Farge and colleagues advised. In this setting, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of fondaparinux or a DOA as an alternative to an LMWH for the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE. “Use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH to prevent postoperative VTE in patients with cancer is recommended,” the authors advised.

Furthermore, extended prophylaxis of at least 4 weeks with LMWH is advised to prevent postoperative VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. Mechanical methods are not recommended except when pharmacologic methods are contraindicated. Inferior vena cava filters are also not recommended for routine prophylaxis.
 

Patients with reduced mobility

For medically treated hospitalized patients with cancer whose mobility is reduced, the authors recommend prophylaxis with either an LMWH or fondaparinux, provided their creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min. These patients can also be treated with unfractionated heparin, they add.

In contrast, DOAs are not recommended – at least not routinely – in this setting, the authors cautioned. Primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE with either LMWH or DOAs – either rivaroxaban or apixaban – is indicated in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy, provided they are at low risk of bleeding.

However, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH is not recommended outside of a clinical trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who are undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, even for patients who are at low risk of bleeding.

For ambulatory patients who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy and who are at intermediate risk of VTE, primary prophylaxis with rivaroxaban or apixaban is recommended for those with myeloma who are receiving immunomodulatory therapy plus steroids or other systemic therapies.

In this setting, oral anticoagulants should consist of a vitamin K antagonist, given at low or therapeutic doses, or apixaban, given at prophylactic doses. Alternatively, LMWH, given at prophylactic doses, or low-dose aspirin, given at a dose of 100 mg/day, can be used.
 

Catheter-related thrombosis

Use of anticoagulation for routine prophylaxis of catheter-related thrombosis is not recommended. Catheters should be inserted on the right side in the jugular vein, and the distal extremity of the central catheter should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium. “In patients requiring central venous catheters, we suggest the use of implanted ports over peripheral inserted central catheter lines,” the authors noted.

The authors described a number of unique situations regarding the treatment of VTE. These situations include patients with a brain tumor, for whom treatment of established VTE should favor either LMWH or a DOA. The authors also recommended the use of LMWH or unfractionated heparin, started postoperatively, for the prevention of VTE for patients undergoing neurosurgery.

In contrast, pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE in medically treated patients with a brain tumor who are not undergoing neurosurgery is not recommended. “In the presence of severe renal failure...we suggest using unfractionated heparin followed by early vitamin K antagonists (possibly from day 1) or LMWH adjusted to anti-Xa concentration of the treatment of established VTE,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Anticoagulant treatment is also recommended for a minimum of 3 months for children with symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. For children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are undergoing induction chemotherapy, LMWH is also recommended as thromboprophylaxis.

For children who require a central venous catheter, the authors suggested that physicians use implanted ports over peripherally inserted central lines.

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

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism for patients with cancer, including those with cancer and COVID-19, have been released by the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC), an academic working group of VTE experts.

“Because patients with cancer have a baseline increased risk of VTE, compared with patients without cancer, the combination of both COVID-19 and cancer – and its effect on VTE risk and treatment – is of concern,” said the authors, led by Dominique Farge, MD, PhD, Nord Universite de Paris.

The updated 2022 ITAC guidelines cover new evidence on the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis, including for patients with cancer and COVID-19, they added.

The new guidelines were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“Cancer-associated VTE remains an important clinical problem, associated with increased morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Farge and colleagues observed.

“The ITAC guidelines’ companion free web-based mobile application will assist the practicing clinician with decision making at various levels to provide optimal care of patients with cancer to treat and prevent VTE,” they emphasized. More information is available at itaccme.com.
 

Cancer patients with COVID

The new section of the guidelines notes that the treatment and prevention of VTE for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain the same as for patients without COVID.

Whether or not cancer patients with COVID-19 are hospitalized, have been discharged, or are ambulatory, they should be assessed for the risk of VTE, as should any other patient. For cancer patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized, pharmacologic prophylaxis should be given at the same dose and anticoagulant type as for hospitalized cancer patients who do not have COVID-19.

Following discharge, VTE prophylaxis is not advised for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and routine primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE for ambulatory patients with COVID-19 is also not recommended, the authors noted.
 

Initial treatment of established VTE

Initial treatment of established VTE for up to 10 days of anticoagulation should include low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) when creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“A regimen of LMWH, taken once per day, is recommended unless a twice-per-day regimen is required because of patients’ characteristics,” the authors noted. These characteristics include a high risk of bleeding, moderate renal failure, and the need for technical intervention, including surgery.

If a twice-a-day regimen is required, only enoxaparin at a dose of 1 mg/kg twice daily can be used, the authors cautioned.

For patients with a low risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or apixaban (Eliquis) can be given in the first 10 days, as well as edoxaban (Lixiana). The latter should be started after at least 5 days of parenteral anticoagulation, provided creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“Unfractionated heparin as well as fondaparinux (GlaxoSmithKline) can be also used for the initial treatment of established VTE when LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants are contraindicated,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Thrombolysis can be considered on a case-by-case basis, although physicians must pay attention to specific contraindications, especially bleeding risk.

“In the initial treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters might be considered when anticoagulant treatment is contraindicated or, in the case of pulmonary embolism, when recurrence occurs under optimal anticoagulation,” the authors noted.
 

Maintenance VTE treatment

For maintenance therapy, which the authors define as early maintenance for up to 6 months and long-term maintenance beyond 6 months, they point out that LMWHs are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of VTE when the creatinine clearance is again at least 30 mL/min.

Any of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) – edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban – is also recommended for the same patients, provided there is no risk of inducing a strong drug-drug interaction or GI absorption is impaired.

However, the DOAs should be used with caution for patients with GI malignancies, especially upper GI cancers, because data show there is an increased risk of GI bleeding with both edoxaban and rivaroxaban.

“LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants should be used for a minimum of 6 months to treat established VTE in patients with cancer,” the authors wrote.

“After 6 months, termination or continuation of anticoagulation (LMWH, direct oral anticoagulants, or vitamin K antagonists) should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio,” they added.
 

Treatment of VTE recurrence

The guideline authors explain that three options can be considered in the event of VTE recurrence. These include an increase in the LMWH dose by 20%-25%, or a switch to a DOA, or, if patients are taking a DOA, a switch to an LMWH. If the patient is taking a vitamin K antagonist, it can be switched to either an LMWH or a DOA.

For treatment of catheter-related thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment is recommended for a minimum of 3 months and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. In this setting, the LMWHs are recommended.

The central venous catheter can be kept in place if it is functional, well positioned, and is not infected, provided there is good resolution of symptoms under close surveillance while anticoagulants are being administered.

In surgically treated patients, the LMWH, given once a day, to patients with a serum creatinine concentration of at least 30 mL/min can be used to prevent VTE. Alternatively, VTE can be prevented by the use low-dose unfractionated heparin, given three times a day.

“Pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 2-12 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days,” Dr. Farge and colleagues advised. In this setting, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of fondaparinux or a DOA as an alternative to an LMWH for the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE. “Use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH to prevent postoperative VTE in patients with cancer is recommended,” the authors advised.

Furthermore, extended prophylaxis of at least 4 weeks with LMWH is advised to prevent postoperative VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. Mechanical methods are not recommended except when pharmacologic methods are contraindicated. Inferior vena cava filters are also not recommended for routine prophylaxis.
 

Patients with reduced mobility

For medically treated hospitalized patients with cancer whose mobility is reduced, the authors recommend prophylaxis with either an LMWH or fondaparinux, provided their creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min. These patients can also be treated with unfractionated heparin, they add.

In contrast, DOAs are not recommended – at least not routinely – in this setting, the authors cautioned. Primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE with either LMWH or DOAs – either rivaroxaban or apixaban – is indicated in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy, provided they are at low risk of bleeding.

However, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH is not recommended outside of a clinical trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who are undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, even for patients who are at low risk of bleeding.

For ambulatory patients who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy and who are at intermediate risk of VTE, primary prophylaxis with rivaroxaban or apixaban is recommended for those with myeloma who are receiving immunomodulatory therapy plus steroids or other systemic therapies.

In this setting, oral anticoagulants should consist of a vitamin K antagonist, given at low or therapeutic doses, or apixaban, given at prophylactic doses. Alternatively, LMWH, given at prophylactic doses, or low-dose aspirin, given at a dose of 100 mg/day, can be used.
 

Catheter-related thrombosis

Use of anticoagulation for routine prophylaxis of catheter-related thrombosis is not recommended. Catheters should be inserted on the right side in the jugular vein, and the distal extremity of the central catheter should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium. “In patients requiring central venous catheters, we suggest the use of implanted ports over peripheral inserted central catheter lines,” the authors noted.

The authors described a number of unique situations regarding the treatment of VTE. These situations include patients with a brain tumor, for whom treatment of established VTE should favor either LMWH or a DOA. The authors also recommended the use of LMWH or unfractionated heparin, started postoperatively, for the prevention of VTE for patients undergoing neurosurgery.

In contrast, pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE in medically treated patients with a brain tumor who are not undergoing neurosurgery is not recommended. “In the presence of severe renal failure...we suggest using unfractionated heparin followed by early vitamin K antagonists (possibly from day 1) or LMWH adjusted to anti-Xa concentration of the treatment of established VTE,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Anticoagulant treatment is also recommended for a minimum of 3 months for children with symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. For children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are undergoing induction chemotherapy, LMWH is also recommended as thromboprophylaxis.

For children who require a central venous catheter, the authors suggested that physicians use implanted ports over peripherally inserted central lines.

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

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism for patients with cancer, including those with cancer and COVID-19, have been released by the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC), an academic working group of VTE experts.

“Because patients with cancer have a baseline increased risk of VTE, compared with patients without cancer, the combination of both COVID-19 and cancer – and its effect on VTE risk and treatment – is of concern,” said the authors, led by Dominique Farge, MD, PhD, Nord Universite de Paris.

The updated 2022 ITAC guidelines cover new evidence on the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis, including for patients with cancer and COVID-19, they added.

The new guidelines were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“Cancer-associated VTE remains an important clinical problem, associated with increased morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Farge and colleagues observed.

“The ITAC guidelines’ companion free web-based mobile application will assist the practicing clinician with decision making at various levels to provide optimal care of patients with cancer to treat and prevent VTE,” they emphasized. More information is available at itaccme.com.
 

Cancer patients with COVID

The new section of the guidelines notes that the treatment and prevention of VTE for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain the same as for patients without COVID.

Whether or not cancer patients with COVID-19 are hospitalized, have been discharged, or are ambulatory, they should be assessed for the risk of VTE, as should any other patient. For cancer patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized, pharmacologic prophylaxis should be given at the same dose and anticoagulant type as for hospitalized cancer patients who do not have COVID-19.

Following discharge, VTE prophylaxis is not advised for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and routine primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE for ambulatory patients with COVID-19 is also not recommended, the authors noted.
 

Initial treatment of established VTE

Initial treatment of established VTE for up to 10 days of anticoagulation should include low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) when creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“A regimen of LMWH, taken once per day, is recommended unless a twice-per-day regimen is required because of patients’ characteristics,” the authors noted. These characteristics include a high risk of bleeding, moderate renal failure, and the need for technical intervention, including surgery.

If a twice-a-day regimen is required, only enoxaparin at a dose of 1 mg/kg twice daily can be used, the authors cautioned.

For patients with a low risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or apixaban (Eliquis) can be given in the first 10 days, as well as edoxaban (Lixiana). The latter should be started after at least 5 days of parenteral anticoagulation, provided creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“Unfractionated heparin as well as fondaparinux (GlaxoSmithKline) can be also used for the initial treatment of established VTE when LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants are contraindicated,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Thrombolysis can be considered on a case-by-case basis, although physicians must pay attention to specific contraindications, especially bleeding risk.

“In the initial treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters might be considered when anticoagulant treatment is contraindicated or, in the case of pulmonary embolism, when recurrence occurs under optimal anticoagulation,” the authors noted.
 

Maintenance VTE treatment

For maintenance therapy, which the authors define as early maintenance for up to 6 months and long-term maintenance beyond 6 months, they point out that LMWHs are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of VTE when the creatinine clearance is again at least 30 mL/min.

Any of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) – edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban – is also recommended for the same patients, provided there is no risk of inducing a strong drug-drug interaction or GI absorption is impaired.

However, the DOAs should be used with caution for patients with GI malignancies, especially upper GI cancers, because data show there is an increased risk of GI bleeding with both edoxaban and rivaroxaban.

“LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants should be used for a minimum of 6 months to treat established VTE in patients with cancer,” the authors wrote.

“After 6 months, termination or continuation of anticoagulation (LMWH, direct oral anticoagulants, or vitamin K antagonists) should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio,” they added.
 

Treatment of VTE recurrence

The guideline authors explain that three options can be considered in the event of VTE recurrence. These include an increase in the LMWH dose by 20%-25%, or a switch to a DOA, or, if patients are taking a DOA, a switch to an LMWH. If the patient is taking a vitamin K antagonist, it can be switched to either an LMWH or a DOA.

For treatment of catheter-related thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment is recommended for a minimum of 3 months and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. In this setting, the LMWHs are recommended.

The central venous catheter can be kept in place if it is functional, well positioned, and is not infected, provided there is good resolution of symptoms under close surveillance while anticoagulants are being administered.

In surgically treated patients, the LMWH, given once a day, to patients with a serum creatinine concentration of at least 30 mL/min can be used to prevent VTE. Alternatively, VTE can be prevented by the use low-dose unfractionated heparin, given three times a day.

“Pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 2-12 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days,” Dr. Farge and colleagues advised. In this setting, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of fondaparinux or a DOA as an alternative to an LMWH for the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE. “Use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH to prevent postoperative VTE in patients with cancer is recommended,” the authors advised.

Furthermore, extended prophylaxis of at least 4 weeks with LMWH is advised to prevent postoperative VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. Mechanical methods are not recommended except when pharmacologic methods are contraindicated. Inferior vena cava filters are also not recommended for routine prophylaxis.
 

Patients with reduced mobility

For medically treated hospitalized patients with cancer whose mobility is reduced, the authors recommend prophylaxis with either an LMWH or fondaparinux, provided their creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min. These patients can also be treated with unfractionated heparin, they add.

In contrast, DOAs are not recommended – at least not routinely – in this setting, the authors cautioned. Primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE with either LMWH or DOAs – either rivaroxaban or apixaban – is indicated in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy, provided they are at low risk of bleeding.

However, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH is not recommended outside of a clinical trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who are undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, even for patients who are at low risk of bleeding.

For ambulatory patients who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy and who are at intermediate risk of VTE, primary prophylaxis with rivaroxaban or apixaban is recommended for those with myeloma who are receiving immunomodulatory therapy plus steroids or other systemic therapies.

In this setting, oral anticoagulants should consist of a vitamin K antagonist, given at low or therapeutic doses, or apixaban, given at prophylactic doses. Alternatively, LMWH, given at prophylactic doses, or low-dose aspirin, given at a dose of 100 mg/day, can be used.
 

Catheter-related thrombosis

Use of anticoagulation for routine prophylaxis of catheter-related thrombosis is not recommended. Catheters should be inserted on the right side in the jugular vein, and the distal extremity of the central catheter should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium. “In patients requiring central venous catheters, we suggest the use of implanted ports over peripheral inserted central catheter lines,” the authors noted.

The authors described a number of unique situations regarding the treatment of VTE. These situations include patients with a brain tumor, for whom treatment of established VTE should favor either LMWH or a DOA. The authors also recommended the use of LMWH or unfractionated heparin, started postoperatively, for the prevention of VTE for patients undergoing neurosurgery.

In contrast, pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE in medically treated patients with a brain tumor who are not undergoing neurosurgery is not recommended. “In the presence of severe renal failure...we suggest using unfractionated heparin followed by early vitamin K antagonists (possibly from day 1) or LMWH adjusted to anti-Xa concentration of the treatment of established VTE,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Anticoagulant treatment is also recommended for a minimum of 3 months for children with symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. For children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are undergoing induction chemotherapy, LMWH is also recommended as thromboprophylaxis.

For children who require a central venous catheter, the authors suggested that physicians use implanted ports over peripherally inserted central lines.

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

A novel blood test that can detect up to 50 different cancers from a single blood draw is gaining traction in the United States.

The Galleri blood test is being now offered by a number of United States health networks.

The company marketing the test, GRAIL, has established partnerships with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mercy Health, Ochsner Health, Intermountain Healthcare, Community Health Network, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University, Premier, and Cleveland Clinic, among others.

Cleveland Clinic’s Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological Kidney Institute, is enthusiastic about the test, describing it as a “game-changer” and emphasizing that it can detect many different cancers and at a very early stage.

“It completely changes the way we think about screening for cancer,” commented Jeff Venstrom, MD, chief medical officer at GRAIL. He joined the company because “there are not many things in life where you can be part of a disruptive paradigm and disruptive technology, and this really is disruptive,” he said in an interview.
 

‘The devil is in the details’

But there is some concern among clinicians that widespread clinical use of the test may be premature.

Having a blood test for multiple cancers is a “very good idea, and the scientific basis for this platform is sound,” commented Timothy R. Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

“But the devil is in the details to ensure the test can accurately detect very early cancers and there is a pathway for subsequent workup (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, etc.),” Dr. Rebbeck told this news organization.

Galleri is offering the test to individuals who are older than 50 and have a family history of cancer or those who are high risk for cancer or immunocompromised. They suggest that interested individuals get in touch with their health care professional, who then needs to register with GRAIL and order the test.

As well as needing a prescription, interested individuals will have to pay for it out of pocket, around $950. The test is not covered by medical insurance and is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Falls into primary care setting

Dr. Rebbeck commented that Galleri is a screening test for individuals who don’t have cancer, so the test is intended to fall into the primary care setting. But he warned that “clinical pathways are not yet in place (but are being developed) so that primary care providers can effectively use them.”

The test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA in a blood sample.

The methylation turns genes on or off, explains Cleveland Clinic’s Dr. Klein in his post. “It’s like fingerprints and how fingerprints tell the difference between two people,” he wrote. “The methylation patterns are fingerprints that are characteristic of each kind of cancer. They look one way for lung cancer and different for colon cancer.” 

The test returns one of two possible results: either “positive, cancer signal detected” or “negative, no cancer signal detected.”

According to the company, when a cancer signal is detected, the Galleri test predicts the cancer signal origin “with high accuracy, to help guide the next steps to diagnosis.”

However, one problem for clinical practice is all the follow-up tests an individual may undergo if their test comes back positive, said Sameek Roychowdhury, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

“Not everybody will have an actual cancer, but they may undergo many tests, with a lot of stress and cost and still not find anything. I can tell you every time someone undergoes a test looking for cancer, that is not an easy day,” Dr. Roychowdhury said in an interview.

In a large-scale validation study, the Galleri test had a specificity of 99.5% (false-positive rate of 0.5%), meaning in roughly 200 people tested without cancer, only one person received a false-positive result (that is, “cancer signal detected” when cancer is not present).

The overall sensitivity of the test for any stage of cancer was 51.5%, although it was higher for later-stage cancers (77% for stage III and 90.1% for stage IV) and lower for early-stage cancers (16.8% for stage I and 40.4% for stage II).
 

Exacerbate health disparities?

In Dr. Rebbeck’s view, the characteristics of the test are still “relatively poor for detecting very early cancers, so it will need additional tweaking before it really achieves the goal of multi-cancer EARLY detection,” he said.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledges that the test is “not perfect yet” and says the company will continue to update and improve its performance. “We have some new data coming out in September,” he said.

Clinical data are being accumulated in the United Kingdom, where the Galleri test is being investigated in a large trial run by the National Health Service (NHS). The company recently announced that the enrollment of 140,000 healthy cancer-free volunteers aged 50-77 into this trial has now been completed and claimed this the largest-ever study of a multi-cancer early detection test.

Dr. Roychowdhury said he would encourage anyone interested in the test to join a clinical trial.

Another expert approached for comment last year, when GRAIL first started marketing the test, was in agreement. This test should be viewed as one that is still under clinical investigation, commented William Grady, MD, a member of the clinical research division and public health sciences division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

“The Galleri test is still unproven in the clinical care setting and ... I am concerned that many of the results will be false-positives and will cause many unnecessary follow-up tests and imaging studies as well as anxiety in the people getting the test done,” Dr. Grady said.

Dr. Rebbeck said another issue that needs to be addressed is whether all populations will have access to and benefit from these types of blood tests to screen for cancer, given that they are expensive. 

“There is a great danger – as we have seen with many other technological innovations – that the wealthy and connected benefit, but the majority of the population, and particularly those who are underserved, do not,” Dr. Rebbeck said.

“As a result, health disparities are created or exacerbated. This is something that needs to be addressed so that the future use of these tests will provide equitable benefits,” he added.

Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Roychowdhury have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Venstrom is an employee of GRAIL.

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

A novel blood test that can detect up to 50 different cancers from a single blood draw is gaining traction in the United States.

The Galleri blood test is being now offered by a number of United States health networks.

The company marketing the test, GRAIL, has established partnerships with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mercy Health, Ochsner Health, Intermountain Healthcare, Community Health Network, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University, Premier, and Cleveland Clinic, among others.

Cleveland Clinic’s Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological Kidney Institute, is enthusiastic about the test, describing it as a “game-changer” and emphasizing that it can detect many different cancers and at a very early stage.

“It completely changes the way we think about screening for cancer,” commented Jeff Venstrom, MD, chief medical officer at GRAIL. He joined the company because “there are not many things in life where you can be part of a disruptive paradigm and disruptive technology, and this really is disruptive,” he said in an interview.
 

‘The devil is in the details’

But there is some concern among clinicians that widespread clinical use of the test may be premature.

Having a blood test for multiple cancers is a “very good idea, and the scientific basis for this platform is sound,” commented Timothy R. Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

“But the devil is in the details to ensure the test can accurately detect very early cancers and there is a pathway for subsequent workup (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, etc.),” Dr. Rebbeck told this news organization.

Galleri is offering the test to individuals who are older than 50 and have a family history of cancer or those who are high risk for cancer or immunocompromised. They suggest that interested individuals get in touch with their health care professional, who then needs to register with GRAIL and order the test.

As well as needing a prescription, interested individuals will have to pay for it out of pocket, around $950. The test is not covered by medical insurance and is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Falls into primary care setting

Dr. Rebbeck commented that Galleri is a screening test for individuals who don’t have cancer, so the test is intended to fall into the primary care setting. But he warned that “clinical pathways are not yet in place (but are being developed) so that primary care providers can effectively use them.”

The test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA in a blood sample.

The methylation turns genes on or off, explains Cleveland Clinic’s Dr. Klein in his post. “It’s like fingerprints and how fingerprints tell the difference between two people,” he wrote. “The methylation patterns are fingerprints that are characteristic of each kind of cancer. They look one way for lung cancer and different for colon cancer.” 

The test returns one of two possible results: either “positive, cancer signal detected” or “negative, no cancer signal detected.”

According to the company, when a cancer signal is detected, the Galleri test predicts the cancer signal origin “with high accuracy, to help guide the next steps to diagnosis.”

However, one problem for clinical practice is all the follow-up tests an individual may undergo if their test comes back positive, said Sameek Roychowdhury, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

“Not everybody will have an actual cancer, but they may undergo many tests, with a lot of stress and cost and still not find anything. I can tell you every time someone undergoes a test looking for cancer, that is not an easy day,” Dr. Roychowdhury said in an interview.

In a large-scale validation study, the Galleri test had a specificity of 99.5% (false-positive rate of 0.5%), meaning in roughly 200 people tested without cancer, only one person received a false-positive result (that is, “cancer signal detected” when cancer is not present).

The overall sensitivity of the test for any stage of cancer was 51.5%, although it was higher for later-stage cancers (77% for stage III and 90.1% for stage IV) and lower for early-stage cancers (16.8% for stage I and 40.4% for stage II).
 

Exacerbate health disparities?

In Dr. Rebbeck’s view, the characteristics of the test are still “relatively poor for detecting very early cancers, so it will need additional tweaking before it really achieves the goal of multi-cancer EARLY detection,” he said.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledges that the test is “not perfect yet” and says the company will continue to update and improve its performance. “We have some new data coming out in September,” he said.

Clinical data are being accumulated in the United Kingdom, where the Galleri test is being investigated in a large trial run by the National Health Service (NHS). The company recently announced that the enrollment of 140,000 healthy cancer-free volunteers aged 50-77 into this trial has now been completed and claimed this the largest-ever study of a multi-cancer early detection test.

Dr. Roychowdhury said he would encourage anyone interested in the test to join a clinical trial.

Another expert approached for comment last year, when GRAIL first started marketing the test, was in agreement. This test should be viewed as one that is still under clinical investigation, commented William Grady, MD, a member of the clinical research division and public health sciences division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

“The Galleri test is still unproven in the clinical care setting and ... I am concerned that many of the results will be false-positives and will cause many unnecessary follow-up tests and imaging studies as well as anxiety in the people getting the test done,” Dr. Grady said.

Dr. Rebbeck said another issue that needs to be addressed is whether all populations will have access to and benefit from these types of blood tests to screen for cancer, given that they are expensive. 

“There is a great danger – as we have seen with many other technological innovations – that the wealthy and connected benefit, but the majority of the population, and particularly those who are underserved, do not,” Dr. Rebbeck said.

“As a result, health disparities are created or exacerbated. This is something that needs to be addressed so that the future use of these tests will provide equitable benefits,” he added.

Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Roychowdhury have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Venstrom is an employee of GRAIL.

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

A novel blood test that can detect up to 50 different cancers from a single blood draw is gaining traction in the United States.

The Galleri blood test is being now offered by a number of United States health networks.

The company marketing the test, GRAIL, has established partnerships with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mercy Health, Ochsner Health, Intermountain Healthcare, Community Health Network, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University, Premier, and Cleveland Clinic, among others.

Cleveland Clinic’s Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological Kidney Institute, is enthusiastic about the test, describing it as a “game-changer” and emphasizing that it can detect many different cancers and at a very early stage.

“It completely changes the way we think about screening for cancer,” commented Jeff Venstrom, MD, chief medical officer at GRAIL. He joined the company because “there are not many things in life where you can be part of a disruptive paradigm and disruptive technology, and this really is disruptive,” he said in an interview.
 

‘The devil is in the details’

But there is some concern among clinicians that widespread clinical use of the test may be premature.

Having a blood test for multiple cancers is a “very good idea, and the scientific basis for this platform is sound,” commented Timothy R. Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

“But the devil is in the details to ensure the test can accurately detect very early cancers and there is a pathway for subsequent workup (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, etc.),” Dr. Rebbeck told this news organization.

Galleri is offering the test to individuals who are older than 50 and have a family history of cancer or those who are high risk for cancer or immunocompromised. They suggest that interested individuals get in touch with their health care professional, who then needs to register with GRAIL and order the test.

As well as needing a prescription, interested individuals will have to pay for it out of pocket, around $950. The test is not covered by medical insurance and is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Falls into primary care setting

Dr. Rebbeck commented that Galleri is a screening test for individuals who don’t have cancer, so the test is intended to fall into the primary care setting. But he warned that “clinical pathways are not yet in place (but are being developed) so that primary care providers can effectively use them.”

The test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA in a blood sample.

The methylation turns genes on or off, explains Cleveland Clinic’s Dr. Klein in his post. “It’s like fingerprints and how fingerprints tell the difference between two people,” he wrote. “The methylation patterns are fingerprints that are characteristic of each kind of cancer. They look one way for lung cancer and different for colon cancer.” 

The test returns one of two possible results: either “positive, cancer signal detected” or “negative, no cancer signal detected.”

According to the company, when a cancer signal is detected, the Galleri test predicts the cancer signal origin “with high accuracy, to help guide the next steps to diagnosis.”

However, one problem for clinical practice is all the follow-up tests an individual may undergo if their test comes back positive, said Sameek Roychowdhury, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

“Not everybody will have an actual cancer, but they may undergo many tests, with a lot of stress and cost and still not find anything. I can tell you every time someone undergoes a test looking for cancer, that is not an easy day,” Dr. Roychowdhury said in an interview.

In a large-scale validation study, the Galleri test had a specificity of 99.5% (false-positive rate of 0.5%), meaning in roughly 200 people tested without cancer, only one person received a false-positive result (that is, “cancer signal detected” when cancer is not present).

The overall sensitivity of the test for any stage of cancer was 51.5%, although it was higher for later-stage cancers (77% for stage III and 90.1% for stage IV) and lower for early-stage cancers (16.8% for stage I and 40.4% for stage II).
 

Exacerbate health disparities?

In Dr. Rebbeck’s view, the characteristics of the test are still “relatively poor for detecting very early cancers, so it will need additional tweaking before it really achieves the goal of multi-cancer EARLY detection,” he said.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledges that the test is “not perfect yet” and says the company will continue to update and improve its performance. “We have some new data coming out in September,” he said.

Clinical data are being accumulated in the United Kingdom, where the Galleri test is being investigated in a large trial run by the National Health Service (NHS). The company recently announced that the enrollment of 140,000 healthy cancer-free volunteers aged 50-77 into this trial has now been completed and claimed this the largest-ever study of a multi-cancer early detection test.

Dr. Roychowdhury said he would encourage anyone interested in the test to join a clinical trial.

Another expert approached for comment last year, when GRAIL first started marketing the test, was in agreement. This test should be viewed as one that is still under clinical investigation, commented William Grady, MD, a member of the clinical research division and public health sciences division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

“The Galleri test is still unproven in the clinical care setting and ... I am concerned that many of the results will be false-positives and will cause many unnecessary follow-up tests and imaging studies as well as anxiety in the people getting the test done,” Dr. Grady said.

Dr. Rebbeck said another issue that needs to be addressed is whether all populations will have access to and benefit from these types of blood tests to screen for cancer, given that they are expensive. 

“There is a great danger – as we have seen with many other technological innovations – that the wealthy and connected benefit, but the majority of the population, and particularly those who are underserved, do not,” Dr. Rebbeck said.

“As a result, health disparities are created or exacerbated. This is something that needs to be addressed so that the future use of these tests will provide equitable benefits,” he added.

Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Roychowdhury have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Venstrom is an employee of GRAIL.

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

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

New York City veterinarian Erin Kulick used to be a weekend warrior. Only 2½ years ago, the 38-year-old new mother played ultimate Frisbee and flag football with friends. She went for regular 30-minute runs to burn off stress.

Now, Dr. Kulick is usually so exhausted, she can’t walk nonstop for 15 minutes. She recently tried to take her 4-year-old son, Cooper, to the American Museum of Natural History for his first visit, but ended up on a bench outside the museum, sobbing in the rain, because she couldn’t even get through the first hurdle of standing in line. “I just wanted to be there with my kid,” she said.

Dr. Kulick got sick with COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020, 9 months before the first vaccine would be approved. Now she is among the estimated one in five infected Americans, or 19%, whose symptoms developed into long COVID.

Dr. Kulick also is now vaccinated and boosted. Had a vaccine been available sooner, could it have protected her from long COVID?

Evidence is starting to show it’s likely.

“The best way not to have long COVID is not to have COVID at all,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University. “To the extent that vaccination can prevent you from getting COVID at all, then it helps to reduce long COVID.”

And just as vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, they also seem to reduce the risk of long COVID if people do get breakthrough infections. People with more serious initial illness appear more likely to have prolonged symptoms, but those with milder disease can certainly get it, too.

“You’re more likely to have long COVID with more severe disease, and we have ample evidence that vaccination reduces the severity of disease,” Dr. Horwitz said. “We also now have quite a lot of evidence that vaccination does reduce your risk of long COVID – probably because it reduces your risk of severe disease.”

There is little consensus about how much vaccines can lower the risk of long-term COVID symptoms, but several studies suggest that number lies anywhere from 15% to more than 80%.

That might seem like a big variation, but infectious disease experts argue that trying to interpret the gap isn’t as important as noticing what’s consistent across all these studies: “Vaccines do offer some protection, but it’s incomplete,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System. Dr. Al-Aly, who has led several large studies on long COVID, said focusing on the fact that vaccines do offer some protection is a much better public health message than looking at the different levels of risk.

“Vaccines do a miraculous job for what they were designed to do,” said Dr. Al-Aly. “Vaccines were designed to reduce the risk of hospitalization ... and for that, vaccines are still holding up, even with all the changes in the virus.”

Still, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, head of the Humanitas Research Hospital’s vaccination center in Milan, thinks some studies may have underestimated the level of long COVID protection from vaccines because of limits in the study methods, such as not including enough women, who are more affected by long COVID. Her recent study, which looked at 2,560 health care professionals working in nine Italian centers from March 2020 to April 2022, focused on the risk for healthy women and men in their 20s to their 70s.

In the paper, Dr. Azzolini and associates reported that two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 from 42% among those who are unvaccinated to 16%-17%. In other words, they found unvaccinated people in the study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks.

But Dr. Azzolini and Dr. Al-Aly still say that, even for the vaccinated, as long as COVID is around, masks are necessary. That’s because current vaccines don’t do enough to reduce transmission, said Dr. Al-Aly. “The only way that can really help [stop] transmission is covering our nose and mouth with a mask.”
 

How vaccinations affect people who already have long COVID

Some long COVID patients have said they got better after they get boosted, while some say they’re getting worse, said Dr. Horwitz, who is also a lead investigator at the National Institutes of Health’s flagship RECOVER program, a 4-year research project to study long COVID across the United States. (The NIH is still recruiting volunteers for these studies, which are also open to people who have never had COVID.)

One study published in the British Medical Journal analyzed survey data of more than 28,000 people infected with COVID in the United Kingdom and found a 13% reduction in long-term symptoms after a first dose of the vaccine, although it was unclear from the data if the improvement was sustained.

A second dose was associated with another 8% improvement over a 2-month period. “It’s reassuring that we see an average modest improvement in symptoms, not an average worsening in symptoms,” said Daniel Ayoubkhani, principal statistician at the U.K. Office for National Statistics and lead author of the study. Of course, the experience will differ among different people.

“It doesn’t appear that vaccination is the silver bullet that’s going to eradicate long COVID,” he said, but evidence from multiple studies suggests vaccines may help people with long-term symptoms.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told a White House summit in July that one of the best ways to prevent long COVID is to develop the next generation of vaccines that also prevent milder cases by blocking transmission in the first place.

Back in New York, Dr. Kulick is now triple vaccinated. She’s due for a fourth dose soon but admits she’s “terrified every time” that she’s going to get sicker.

In her Facebook support group for long COVID, she reads that most people with prolonged symptoms handle it well. She has also noticed some of her symptoms eased after her first two doses of vaccine.

Since being diagnosed, Dr. Kulick learned she has a genetic condition, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which affects connective tissues that support skin, joints, organs, and blood vessels, and which her doctors say may have made her more prone to long COVID. She’s also being screened for autoimmune diseases, but for now, the only relief she has found has come from long COVID physical therapy, changes to her diet, and integrative medicine.

Dr. Kulick is still trying to figure out how she can get better while keeping her long hours at her veterinary job – and her health benefits. She is thankful her husband is a devoted caregiver to their son and a professional jazz musician with a schedule that allows for some flexibility.

“But it’s really hard when every week feels like I’ve run a marathon,” she said. “I can barely make it through.”

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

New York City veterinarian Erin Kulick used to be a weekend warrior. Only 2½ years ago, the 38-year-old new mother played ultimate Frisbee and flag football with friends. She went for regular 30-minute runs to burn off stress.

Now, Dr. Kulick is usually so exhausted, she can’t walk nonstop for 15 minutes. She recently tried to take her 4-year-old son, Cooper, to the American Museum of Natural History for his first visit, but ended up on a bench outside the museum, sobbing in the rain, because she couldn’t even get through the first hurdle of standing in line. “I just wanted to be there with my kid,” she said.

Dr. Kulick got sick with COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020, 9 months before the first vaccine would be approved. Now she is among the estimated one in five infected Americans, or 19%, whose symptoms developed into long COVID.

Dr. Kulick also is now vaccinated and boosted. Had a vaccine been available sooner, could it have protected her from long COVID?

Evidence is starting to show it’s likely.

“The best way not to have long COVID is not to have COVID at all,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University. “To the extent that vaccination can prevent you from getting COVID at all, then it helps to reduce long COVID.”

And just as vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, they also seem to reduce the risk of long COVID if people do get breakthrough infections. People with more serious initial illness appear more likely to have prolonged symptoms, but those with milder disease can certainly get it, too.

“You’re more likely to have long COVID with more severe disease, and we have ample evidence that vaccination reduces the severity of disease,” Dr. Horwitz said. “We also now have quite a lot of evidence that vaccination does reduce your risk of long COVID – probably because it reduces your risk of severe disease.”

There is little consensus about how much vaccines can lower the risk of long-term COVID symptoms, but several studies suggest that number lies anywhere from 15% to more than 80%.

That might seem like a big variation, but infectious disease experts argue that trying to interpret the gap isn’t as important as noticing what’s consistent across all these studies: “Vaccines do offer some protection, but it’s incomplete,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System. Dr. Al-Aly, who has led several large studies on long COVID, said focusing on the fact that vaccines do offer some protection is a much better public health message than looking at the different levels of risk.

“Vaccines do a miraculous job for what they were designed to do,” said Dr. Al-Aly. “Vaccines were designed to reduce the risk of hospitalization ... and for that, vaccines are still holding up, even with all the changes in the virus.”

Still, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, head of the Humanitas Research Hospital’s vaccination center in Milan, thinks some studies may have underestimated the level of long COVID protection from vaccines because of limits in the study methods, such as not including enough women, who are more affected by long COVID. Her recent study, which looked at 2,560 health care professionals working in nine Italian centers from March 2020 to April 2022, focused on the risk for healthy women and men in their 20s to their 70s.

In the paper, Dr. Azzolini and associates reported that two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 from 42% among those who are unvaccinated to 16%-17%. In other words, they found unvaccinated people in the study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks.

But Dr. Azzolini and Dr. Al-Aly still say that, even for the vaccinated, as long as COVID is around, masks are necessary. That’s because current vaccines don’t do enough to reduce transmission, said Dr. Al-Aly. “The only way that can really help [stop] transmission is covering our nose and mouth with a mask.”
 

How vaccinations affect people who already have long COVID

Some long COVID patients have said they got better after they get boosted, while some say they’re getting worse, said Dr. Horwitz, who is also a lead investigator at the National Institutes of Health’s flagship RECOVER program, a 4-year research project to study long COVID across the United States. (The NIH is still recruiting volunteers for these studies, which are also open to people who have never had COVID.)

One study published in the British Medical Journal analyzed survey data of more than 28,000 people infected with COVID in the United Kingdom and found a 13% reduction in long-term symptoms after a first dose of the vaccine, although it was unclear from the data if the improvement was sustained.

A second dose was associated with another 8% improvement over a 2-month period. “It’s reassuring that we see an average modest improvement in symptoms, not an average worsening in symptoms,” said Daniel Ayoubkhani, principal statistician at the U.K. Office for National Statistics and lead author of the study. Of course, the experience will differ among different people.

“It doesn’t appear that vaccination is the silver bullet that’s going to eradicate long COVID,” he said, but evidence from multiple studies suggests vaccines may help people with long-term symptoms.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told a White House summit in July that one of the best ways to prevent long COVID is to develop the next generation of vaccines that also prevent milder cases by blocking transmission in the first place.

Back in New York, Dr. Kulick is now triple vaccinated. She’s due for a fourth dose soon but admits she’s “terrified every time” that she’s going to get sicker.

In her Facebook support group for long COVID, she reads that most people with prolonged symptoms handle it well. She has also noticed some of her symptoms eased after her first two doses of vaccine.

Since being diagnosed, Dr. Kulick learned she has a genetic condition, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which affects connective tissues that support skin, joints, organs, and blood vessels, and which her doctors say may have made her more prone to long COVID. She’s also being screened for autoimmune diseases, but for now, the only relief she has found has come from long COVID physical therapy, changes to her diet, and integrative medicine.

Dr. Kulick is still trying to figure out how she can get better while keeping her long hours at her veterinary job – and her health benefits. She is thankful her husband is a devoted caregiver to their son and a professional jazz musician with a schedule that allows for some flexibility.

“But it’s really hard when every week feels like I’ve run a marathon,” she said. “I can barely make it through.”

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

New York City veterinarian Erin Kulick used to be a weekend warrior. Only 2½ years ago, the 38-year-old new mother played ultimate Frisbee and flag football with friends. She went for regular 30-minute runs to burn off stress.

Now, Dr. Kulick is usually so exhausted, she can’t walk nonstop for 15 minutes. She recently tried to take her 4-year-old son, Cooper, to the American Museum of Natural History for his first visit, but ended up on a bench outside the museum, sobbing in the rain, because she couldn’t even get through the first hurdle of standing in line. “I just wanted to be there with my kid,” she said.

Dr. Kulick got sick with COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020, 9 months before the first vaccine would be approved. Now she is among the estimated one in five infected Americans, or 19%, whose symptoms developed into long COVID.

Dr. Kulick also is now vaccinated and boosted. Had a vaccine been available sooner, could it have protected her from long COVID?

Evidence is starting to show it’s likely.

“The best way not to have long COVID is not to have COVID at all,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University. “To the extent that vaccination can prevent you from getting COVID at all, then it helps to reduce long COVID.”

And just as vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, they also seem to reduce the risk of long COVID if people do get breakthrough infections. People with more serious initial illness appear more likely to have prolonged symptoms, but those with milder disease can certainly get it, too.

“You’re more likely to have long COVID with more severe disease, and we have ample evidence that vaccination reduces the severity of disease,” Dr. Horwitz said. “We also now have quite a lot of evidence that vaccination does reduce your risk of long COVID – probably because it reduces your risk of severe disease.”

There is little consensus about how much vaccines can lower the risk of long-term COVID symptoms, but several studies suggest that number lies anywhere from 15% to more than 80%.

That might seem like a big variation, but infectious disease experts argue that trying to interpret the gap isn’t as important as noticing what’s consistent across all these studies: “Vaccines do offer some protection, but it’s incomplete,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System. Dr. Al-Aly, who has led several large studies on long COVID, said focusing on the fact that vaccines do offer some protection is a much better public health message than looking at the different levels of risk.

“Vaccines do a miraculous job for what they were designed to do,” said Dr. Al-Aly. “Vaccines were designed to reduce the risk of hospitalization ... and for that, vaccines are still holding up, even with all the changes in the virus.”

Still, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, head of the Humanitas Research Hospital’s vaccination center in Milan, thinks some studies may have underestimated the level of long COVID protection from vaccines because of limits in the study methods, such as not including enough women, who are more affected by long COVID. Her recent study, which looked at 2,560 health care professionals working in nine Italian centers from March 2020 to April 2022, focused on the risk for healthy women and men in their 20s to their 70s.

In the paper, Dr. Azzolini and associates reported that two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 from 42% among those who are unvaccinated to 16%-17%. In other words, they found unvaccinated people in the study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks.

But Dr. Azzolini and Dr. Al-Aly still say that, even for the vaccinated, as long as COVID is around, masks are necessary. That’s because current vaccines don’t do enough to reduce transmission, said Dr. Al-Aly. “The only way that can really help [stop] transmission is covering our nose and mouth with a mask.”
 

How vaccinations affect people who already have long COVID

Some long COVID patients have said they got better after they get boosted, while some say they’re getting worse, said Dr. Horwitz, who is also a lead investigator at the National Institutes of Health’s flagship RECOVER program, a 4-year research project to study long COVID across the United States. (The NIH is still recruiting volunteers for these studies, which are also open to people who have never had COVID.)

One study published in the British Medical Journal analyzed survey data of more than 28,000 people infected with COVID in the United Kingdom and found a 13% reduction in long-term symptoms after a first dose of the vaccine, although it was unclear from the data if the improvement was sustained.

A second dose was associated with another 8% improvement over a 2-month period. “It’s reassuring that we see an average modest improvement in symptoms, not an average worsening in symptoms,” said Daniel Ayoubkhani, principal statistician at the U.K. Office for National Statistics and lead author of the study. Of course, the experience will differ among different people.

“It doesn’t appear that vaccination is the silver bullet that’s going to eradicate long COVID,” he said, but evidence from multiple studies suggests vaccines may help people with long-term symptoms.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told a White House summit in July that one of the best ways to prevent long COVID is to develop the next generation of vaccines that also prevent milder cases by blocking transmission in the first place.

Back in New York, Dr. Kulick is now triple vaccinated. She’s due for a fourth dose soon but admits she’s “terrified every time” that she’s going to get sicker.

In her Facebook support group for long COVID, she reads that most people with prolonged symptoms handle it well. She has also noticed some of her symptoms eased after her first two doses of vaccine.

Since being diagnosed, Dr. Kulick learned she has a genetic condition, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which affects connective tissues that support skin, joints, organs, and blood vessels, and which her doctors say may have made her more prone to long COVID. She’s also being screened for autoimmune diseases, but for now, the only relief she has found has come from long COVID physical therapy, changes to her diet, and integrative medicine.

Dr. Kulick is still trying to figure out how she can get better while keeping her long hours at her veterinary job – and her health benefits. She is thankful her husband is a devoted caregiver to their son and a professional jazz musician with a schedule that allows for some flexibility.

“But it’s really hard when every week feels like I’ve run a marathon,” she said. “I can barely make it through.”

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

Radiation therapy, along with surgery and systemic therapy, is a primary therapeutic modality for cancer management. At least half of cancer patients receive radiation as part of their treatment regimen.¹ Multiple studies demonstrate that radiotherapy is underutilized worldwide.² One reason for underutilization of radiotherapy globally is poor access to this treatment modality. Factors that contribute to poor access include long wait times for consultation, delays in treatment initiation, distance to a treatment facility, and poor coordination of care.

Taskforce Findings

The presence of onsite radiation oncology and its impact on utilization of radiotherapy is poorly studied. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recently conducted a survey to determine the barriers to referral and timeliness of treatment for palliative radiotherapy within the VHA.³ Key findings of this study comparing centers with onsite radiation departments with centers without onsite radiation departments include:

a. Radiation consults are more likely to be completed within 1 week of consult request at centers with onsite radiation therapy (68% vs 31%, respectively; P = .01).

b. Centers with onsite radiation therapy more frequently deliver emergent treatment within 24 hours for patients with spinal cord compression, an emergency condition in which prompt radiation can prevent or minimize long-term neurologic disability (94% vs 70%, respectively; P = .01).

c. Referring practitioners with onsite radiation departments are less likely to report difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy (0% vs 20%, respectively; P = .006).

d. Referring practitioners with onsite radiotherapy report patient travel as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy less frequently (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

e. Practitioners with onsite radiation oncology departments are more likely to have multidisciplinary tumor boards (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01) and are more likely to be influenced by radiation oncology recommendations at tumor boards (69% vs 44%, respectively; P = .02).

Based on the findings of this study, the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce has prepared this consensus statement regarding the importance of onsite radiation oncology departments at VHA medical centers. More information regarding our 5 key findings and their implications for patient care are as follows:

Timeliness of Radiation Oncology Consultation

Delays in radiation oncology consultation, which can also delay treatment initiation, are associated with poor satisfaction among both patients and referring clinicians.⁴ Wait times have been identified as a barrier to utilization of radiotherapy by both patients and clinicians.^5,6 Furthermore, delays in initiation of definitive therapy have been associated with worse outcomes, including worse overall survival.^7,8 Our survey study demonstrates that consults for palliative radiotherapy are occurring in a more timely manner at centers with onsite radiation departments. Radiation oncology consults are more frequently completed within 1 week at centers with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with centers without onsite radiation oncology departments (68% vs 31%, P = .01). This trend would likely be seen for nonpalliative, definitive cases as well. The presence of radiation oncology departments onsite at VHA medical centers is an important component of timely care for veterans to optimize outcomes of cancer treatment.

Timely Delivery of Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies

There are a few scenarios in which emergent radiation treatment, within 24 hours, is indicated. These include malignant spinal cord compression, uncal herniation from brain metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, and tumor hemorrhage.⁹ Studies on management of metastatic spinal cord compression demonstrate that delays in treatment are associated with reduced ambulation¹⁰ as well as loss of sphincter function and incontinence.¹¹

Our study demonstrates that VHA medical centers with onsite radiotherapy more frequently deliver radiotherapy within 24 hours for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. This timely delivery of treatment is critical to optimizing functional status and quality of life in patients requiring treatment for oncologic emergencies. Revisiting treatment pathways for such situations at regular intervals is crucial given that residents and staff may rotate and be unfamiliar with emergency protocols.

Communication With Radiation Oncologists

Several studies have demonstrated that the inability to contact a radiation oncologist and poor communication result in decreased referrals for palliative radiotherapy.^12,13 Our study demonstrates that onsite radiation oncology is associated with improved ability to contact a radiation oncologist. About 20% of clinicians at facilities without onsite radiation oncology reported difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist, compared with 0% at facilities with onsite radiation departments (P = .006).

It is possible that increased radiation oncology presence at VHA medical centers, through attenuation of barriers related to contacting a radiation oncologist and improved communication, would lead to increased use of radiotherapy. Increased communication between referring clinicians and radiation oncologists also can help with education of those clinicians making the referral. Since knowledge gaps have been identified in multiple studies as a barrier to referral for radiotherapy, such communication and increased education on the role of radiotherapy could increase use.^12-14

Patient Travel

Patient ability to travel was the most commonly reported barrier (81%) to referral for palliative radiotherapy in our study. Travel time and transportation difficulties have been established in multiple studies as barriers to radiotherapy for both definitive and palliative management.^15-18 Travel for radiotherapy was much less frequently reported as a barrier among respondents with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with those without onsite radiation departments (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

It is therefore possible that expansion of VHA radiation oncology services, allowing for provision of onsite radiotherapy at more VHA facilities, would reduce travel burden. Increasing travel accommodations for patients and provision of patient lodging on hospital campuses, which is already offered at some VHA medical centers (ie, Fisher House Foundation), could also help attenuate this barrier.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards

Our study demonstrates that centers with onsite radiation departments more frequently hold multidisciplinary tumor boards compared with centers without radiation departments (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01). Multidisciplinary tumor boards allow subspecialties to meet regularly to communicate about patient care and can help mitigate barriers related to communication and education of the referring health care practitioners.

As cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards, health care practitioners have the opportunity to make recommendations and provide education on potential benefits and/or downsides of treatments offered by their respective specialties. Several studies have demonstrated that cases discussed at multidisciplinary tumor boards are more likely to be referred for radiation therapy.^19-21 Furthermore, multidisciplinary tumor boards have been associated with improved treatment outcomes.²²

Conclusions

In this consensus statement the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recommends the optimization of use of radiotherapy within the VHA. Radiation oncology services should be maintained where present in the VHA, with consideration for expansion of services to additional facilities. Telehealth should be used to expedite consults and treatment. Hypofractionation should be used, when appropriate, to ease travel burden. Options for transportation services and onsite housing, or hospitalization, should be understood by practitioners and offered to patients to mitigate barriers related to travel.

Radiation therapy, along with surgery and systemic therapy, is a primary therapeutic modality for cancer management. At least half of cancer patients receive radiation as part of their treatment regimen.¹ Multiple studies demonstrate that radiotherapy is underutilized worldwide.² One reason for underutilization of radiotherapy globally is poor access to this treatment modality. Factors that contribute to poor access include long wait times for consultation, delays in treatment initiation, distance to a treatment facility, and poor coordination of care.

Taskforce Findings

The presence of onsite radiation oncology and its impact on utilization of radiotherapy is poorly studied. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recently conducted a survey to determine the barriers to referral and timeliness of treatment for palliative radiotherapy within the VHA.³ Key findings of this study comparing centers with onsite radiation departments with centers without onsite radiation departments include:

a. Radiation consults are more likely to be completed within 1 week of consult request at centers with onsite radiation therapy (68% vs 31%, respectively; P = .01).

b. Centers with onsite radiation therapy more frequently deliver emergent treatment within 24 hours for patients with spinal cord compression, an emergency condition in which prompt radiation can prevent or minimize long-term neurologic disability (94% vs 70%, respectively; P = .01).

c. Referring practitioners with onsite radiation departments are less likely to report difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy (0% vs 20%, respectively; P = .006).

d. Referring practitioners with onsite radiotherapy report patient travel as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy less frequently (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

e. Practitioners with onsite radiation oncology departments are more likely to have multidisciplinary tumor boards (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01) and are more likely to be influenced by radiation oncology recommendations at tumor boards (69% vs 44%, respectively; P = .02).

Based on the findings of this study, the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce has prepared this consensus statement regarding the importance of onsite radiation oncology departments at VHA medical centers. More information regarding our 5 key findings and their implications for patient care are as follows:

Timeliness of Radiation Oncology Consultation

Delays in radiation oncology consultation, which can also delay treatment initiation, are associated with poor satisfaction among both patients and referring clinicians.⁴ Wait times have been identified as a barrier to utilization of radiotherapy by both patients and clinicians.^5,6 Furthermore, delays in initiation of definitive therapy have been associated with worse outcomes, including worse overall survival.^7,8 Our survey study demonstrates that consults for palliative radiotherapy are occurring in a more timely manner at centers with onsite radiation departments. Radiation oncology consults are more frequently completed within 1 week at centers with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with centers without onsite radiation oncology departments (68% vs 31%, P = .01). This trend would likely be seen for nonpalliative, definitive cases as well. The presence of radiation oncology departments onsite at VHA medical centers is an important component of timely care for veterans to optimize outcomes of cancer treatment.

Timely Delivery of Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies

There are a few scenarios in which emergent radiation treatment, within 24 hours, is indicated. These include malignant spinal cord compression, uncal herniation from brain metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, and tumor hemorrhage.⁹ Studies on management of metastatic spinal cord compression demonstrate that delays in treatment are associated with reduced ambulation¹⁰ as well as loss of sphincter function and incontinence.¹¹

Our study demonstrates that VHA medical centers with onsite radiotherapy more frequently deliver radiotherapy within 24 hours for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. This timely delivery of treatment is critical to optimizing functional status and quality of life in patients requiring treatment for oncologic emergencies. Revisiting treatment pathways for such situations at regular intervals is crucial given that residents and staff may rotate and be unfamiliar with emergency protocols.

Communication With Radiation Oncologists

Several studies have demonstrated that the inability to contact a radiation oncologist and poor communication result in decreased referrals for palliative radiotherapy.^12,13 Our study demonstrates that onsite radiation oncology is associated with improved ability to contact a radiation oncologist. About 20% of clinicians at facilities without onsite radiation oncology reported difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist, compared with 0% at facilities with onsite radiation departments (P = .006).

It is possible that increased radiation oncology presence at VHA medical centers, through attenuation of barriers related to contacting a radiation oncologist and improved communication, would lead to increased use of radiotherapy. Increased communication between referring clinicians and radiation oncologists also can help with education of those clinicians making the referral. Since knowledge gaps have been identified in multiple studies as a barrier to referral for radiotherapy, such communication and increased education on the role of radiotherapy could increase use.^12-14

Patient Travel

Patient ability to travel was the most commonly reported barrier (81%) to referral for palliative radiotherapy in our study. Travel time and transportation difficulties have been established in multiple studies as barriers to radiotherapy for both definitive and palliative management.^15-18 Travel for radiotherapy was much less frequently reported as a barrier among respondents with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with those without onsite radiation departments (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

It is therefore possible that expansion of VHA radiation oncology services, allowing for provision of onsite radiotherapy at more VHA facilities, would reduce travel burden. Increasing travel accommodations for patients and provision of patient lodging on hospital campuses, which is already offered at some VHA medical centers (ie, Fisher House Foundation), could also help attenuate this barrier.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards

Our study demonstrates that centers with onsite radiation departments more frequently hold multidisciplinary tumor boards compared with centers without radiation departments (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01). Multidisciplinary tumor boards allow subspecialties to meet regularly to communicate about patient care and can help mitigate barriers related to communication and education of the referring health care practitioners.

As cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards, health care practitioners have the opportunity to make recommendations and provide education on potential benefits and/or downsides of treatments offered by their respective specialties. Several studies have demonstrated that cases discussed at multidisciplinary tumor boards are more likely to be referred for radiation therapy.^19-21 Furthermore, multidisciplinary tumor boards have been associated with improved treatment outcomes.²²

Conclusions

In this consensus statement the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recommends the optimization of use of radiotherapy within the VHA. Radiation oncology services should be maintained where present in the VHA, with consideration for expansion of services to additional facilities. Telehealth should be used to expedite consults and treatment. Hypofractionation should be used, when appropriate, to ease travel burden. Options for transportation services and onsite housing, or hospitalization, should be understood by practitioners and offered to patients to mitigate barriers related to travel.

Radiation therapy, along with surgery and systemic therapy, is a primary therapeutic modality for cancer management. At least half of cancer patients receive radiation as part of their treatment regimen.¹ Multiple studies demonstrate that radiotherapy is underutilized worldwide.² One reason for underutilization of radiotherapy globally is poor access to this treatment modality. Factors that contribute to poor access include long wait times for consultation, delays in treatment initiation, distance to a treatment facility, and poor coordination of care.

Taskforce Findings

The presence of onsite radiation oncology and its impact on utilization of radiotherapy is poorly studied. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recently conducted a survey to determine the barriers to referral and timeliness of treatment for palliative radiotherapy within the VHA.³ Key findings of this study comparing centers with onsite radiation departments with centers without onsite radiation departments include:

a. Radiation consults are more likely to be completed within 1 week of consult request at centers with onsite radiation therapy (68% vs 31%, respectively; P = .01).

b. Centers with onsite radiation therapy more frequently deliver emergent treatment within 24 hours for patients with spinal cord compression, an emergency condition in which prompt radiation can prevent or minimize long-term neurologic disability (94% vs 70%, respectively; P = .01).

c. Referring practitioners with onsite radiation departments are less likely to report difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy (0% vs 20%, respectively; P = .006).

d. Referring practitioners with onsite radiotherapy report patient travel as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy less frequently (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

e. Practitioners with onsite radiation oncology departments are more likely to have multidisciplinary tumor boards (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01) and are more likely to be influenced by radiation oncology recommendations at tumor boards (69% vs 44%, respectively; P = .02).

Based on the findings of this study, the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce has prepared this consensus statement regarding the importance of onsite radiation oncology departments at VHA medical centers. More information regarding our 5 key findings and their implications for patient care are as follows:

Timeliness of Radiation Oncology Consultation

Delays in radiation oncology consultation, which can also delay treatment initiation, are associated with poor satisfaction among both patients and referring clinicians.⁴ Wait times have been identified as a barrier to utilization of radiotherapy by both patients and clinicians.^5,6 Furthermore, delays in initiation of definitive therapy have been associated with worse outcomes, including worse overall survival.^7,8 Our survey study demonstrates that consults for palliative radiotherapy are occurring in a more timely manner at centers with onsite radiation departments. Radiation oncology consults are more frequently completed within 1 week at centers with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with centers without onsite radiation oncology departments (68% vs 31%, P = .01). This trend would likely be seen for nonpalliative, definitive cases as well. The presence of radiation oncology departments onsite at VHA medical centers is an important component of timely care for veterans to optimize outcomes of cancer treatment.

Timely Delivery of Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies

There are a few scenarios in which emergent radiation treatment, within 24 hours, is indicated. These include malignant spinal cord compression, uncal herniation from brain metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, and tumor hemorrhage.⁹ Studies on management of metastatic spinal cord compression demonstrate that delays in treatment are associated with reduced ambulation¹⁰ as well as loss of sphincter function and incontinence.¹¹

Our study demonstrates that VHA medical centers with onsite radiotherapy more frequently deliver radiotherapy within 24 hours for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. This timely delivery of treatment is critical to optimizing functional status and quality of life in patients requiring treatment for oncologic emergencies. Revisiting treatment pathways for such situations at regular intervals is crucial given that residents and staff may rotate and be unfamiliar with emergency protocols.

Communication With Radiation Oncologists

Several studies have demonstrated that the inability to contact a radiation oncologist and poor communication result in decreased referrals for palliative radiotherapy.^12,13 Our study demonstrates that onsite radiation oncology is associated with improved ability to contact a radiation oncologist. About 20% of clinicians at facilities without onsite radiation oncology reported difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist, compared with 0% at facilities with onsite radiation departments (P = .006).

It is possible that increased radiation oncology presence at VHA medical centers, through attenuation of barriers related to contacting a radiation oncologist and improved communication, would lead to increased use of radiotherapy. Increased communication between referring clinicians and radiation oncologists also can help with education of those clinicians making the referral. Since knowledge gaps have been identified in multiple studies as a barrier to referral for radiotherapy, such communication and increased education on the role of radiotherapy could increase use.^12-14

Patient Travel

Patient ability to travel was the most commonly reported barrier (81%) to referral for palliative radiotherapy in our study. Travel time and transportation difficulties have been established in multiple studies as barriers to radiotherapy for both definitive and palliative management.^15-18 Travel for radiotherapy was much less frequently reported as a barrier among respondents with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with those without onsite radiation departments (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

It is therefore possible that expansion of VHA radiation oncology services, allowing for provision of onsite radiotherapy at more VHA facilities, would reduce travel burden. Increasing travel accommodations for patients and provision of patient lodging on hospital campuses, which is already offered at some VHA medical centers (ie, Fisher House Foundation), could also help attenuate this barrier.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards

Our study demonstrates that centers with onsite radiation departments more frequently hold multidisciplinary tumor boards compared with centers without radiation departments (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01). Multidisciplinary tumor boards allow subspecialties to meet regularly to communicate about patient care and can help mitigate barriers related to communication and education of the referring health care practitioners.

As cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards, health care practitioners have the opportunity to make recommendations and provide education on potential benefits and/or downsides of treatments offered by their respective specialties. Several studies have demonstrated that cases discussed at multidisciplinary tumor boards are more likely to be referred for radiation therapy.^19-21 Furthermore, multidisciplinary tumor boards have been associated with improved treatment outcomes.²²

Conclusions

In this consensus statement the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recommends the optimization of use of radiotherapy within the VHA. Radiation oncology services should be maintained where present in the VHA, with consideration for expansion of services to additional facilities. Telehealth should be used to expedite consults and treatment. Hypofractionation should be used, when appropriate, to ease travel burden. Options for transportation services and onsite housing, or hospitalization, should be understood by practitioners and offered to patients to mitigate barriers related to travel.

Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 1% to 2% of all cancers and slightly more than 17% of hematologic malignancies in the United States.¹ MM is characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of immunoglobulin (Ig)-producing plasma cells with ≥ 10% clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow or biopsy-proven bony or soft tissue plasmacytoma, plus presence of related organ or tissue impairment or presence of a biomarker associated with near-inevitable progression to end-organ damage.²

Background

Up to 97% of patients with MM will have a monoclonal (M) protein produced and secreted by the malignant plasma cells, which can be detected by protein electrophoresis of the serum and an aliquot of urine from a 24-hour collection combined with immunofixation of the serum and urine. The M protein in MM usually consists of IgG 50% of the time and light chains 16% of the time. Patients who lack detectable M protein are considered to have nonsecretory myeloma. MM presents with end-organ damage, which includes hypercalcemia, renal dysfunction, anemia, or lytic bone lesions. Patients with MM frequently present with renal insufficiency due to cast nephropathy or light chain deposition disease.³

MM is thought to evolve from monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance (MGUS), an asymptomatic premalignant stage of clonal plasma cell proliferation with a risk of progression to active myeloma at 1% per year.^4,5 Epidemiologic data suggest that people who develop MM have a genetic predisposition, but risk factors may develop or be acquired, such as age, immunosuppression, and environmental exposures. To better assess what causes transformation from MGUS to MM, it is important to identify agents that may cause this second hit.⁶

In November 1961, President John F. Kennedy authorized the start of Operation Ranch Hand, the US Air Force’s herbicide program during the Vietnam War. Twenty million gallons of various chemicals were sprayed in Vietnam, eastern Laos, and parts of Cambodia to defoliate rural land, depriving guerillas of their support base. Agent Orange (AO) was one of these chemicals; it is a mixed herbicide with traces of dioxin, a compound that has been associated with major health problems among exposed individuals.⁷ Several studies have evaluated exposure to AO and its potential harmful repercussions. Studies have assessed the link between AO and MGUS as well as AO to various leukemias, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.^8,9 Other studies have shown the relationship between AO exposure and worse outcomes in persons with MM.¹⁰ To date, only a single abstract from a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center has investigated the relationships between AO exposure and MGUS, MM, and the rate of transformation. The VA study of patients seen from 2005 to 2015 in Detroit, Michigan, found that AO exposure led to an increase in cumulative incidence rate of MGUS/MM, suggesting possible changes in disease biology and genetics.¹¹

In this study, we aimed to determine the incidence of transformation of MGUS to MM in patients with and without exposure to AO. We then analyzed survival as a function of AO exposure, transformation, and clinical and sociodemographic variables. We also explored the impact of psychosocial variables and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), a standard of treatment for MM.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study assembled electronic health record (EHR) data from the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VA Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System Institutional Review Board granted a waiver of consent for this record review. Eligible patients were Vietnam-era veterans who were in the military during the time that AO was used (1961-1971). Veterans were included if they were being cared for and received a diagnosis for MGUS or MM between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2015 (all prevalent cases fiscal years 2010-2015). Cases were excluded if there was illogical death data or if age, race, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), or prior-year diagnostic data were missing.

Measures

Patients were followed through April 2020. Presence of MGUS was defined by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code 273.1. MM was identified by ICD-9 diagnosis codes 203.00, 203.01, and 203.02. The study index date was the earliest date of diagnosis of MGUS or MM in fiscal years 2010-2015. It was suspected that some patients with MM may have had a history of MGUS prior to this period. Therefore, for patients with MM, historical diagnosis of MGUS was extracted going back through the earliest data in the CDW (October 1999). Patients diagnosed with both MGUS and MM were considered transformation patients.

Other measures included age at index date, sex, race, ethnicity, VA priority status (a value 1 to 8 summarizing why the veteran qualified for VA care, such as military service-connected disability or very low income), and AO exposure authenticated per VA enrollment files and disability records. Service years were separated into 1961 to 1968 and 1969 to 1971 to match a change in the formulation of AO associated with decreased carcinogenic effect. Comorbidity data from the year prior to first MGUS/MM diagnosis in the observation period were extracted. Lifestyle factors associated with development of MGUS/MM were determined using the following codes: obesity per BMI calculation or diagnosis (ICD-9, 278.0), tobacco use per diagnosis (ICD-9, 305.1, V15.82), and survival from MGUS/MM diagnosis index date to date of death from any cause. Comorbidity was assessed using ICD-9 diagnosis codes to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), which includes cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, liver and kidney diseases, cancers, and metastatic solid tumors. Cancers were omitted from our adapted CCI to avoid collinearity in the multivariable models. The theoretical maximum CCI score in this study was 25.^12,13 Additional conditions known to be associated with variation in outcomes among veterans using the VA were indicated, including major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol use disorder (AUD), substance use disorder (SUD), and common chronic disease (hypertension, lipid disorders).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Sample characteristics were represented by frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and SDs (or medians and ranges where appropriate) for continuous variables. A χ² test (or Fisher exact test when cell counts were low) assessed associations in bivariate comparisons. A 2-sample t test (or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate) assessed differences in continuous variables between 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier curves depicted the unadjusted relationship of AO exposure to survival. Cox proportional hazards survival models examined an unadjusted model containing only the AO exposure indicator as a predictor and adjusted models were used for demographic and clinical factors for MGUS and patients with MM separately.

Predictors were age in decades, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, race, nicotine dependence, obesity, overweight, AUD, SUD, major depressive disorder, PTSD, and the adapted CCI. When modeling patients with MM, MGUS was added to the model to identify the transformation group. The interaction of AO with transformation was also analyzed for patients with MM. Results were reported as hazard ratios (HR) with their 95% CI.

Results

We identified 18,215 veterans diagnosed with either MGUS or MM during fiscal years 2010-2015 with 16,366 meeting inclusion criteria. Patients were excluded for missing data on exposure (n = 334), age (n = 12), race (n = 1058), ethnicity (n = 164), diagnosis (n = 47), treatment (n = 56), and BMI (n = 178). All were Vietnam War era veterans; 14 also served in other eras.

The cohort was 98.5% male (Table 1). Twenty-nine percent were Black veterans, 65% were White veterans, and 4% of individuals reported Hispanic ethnicity. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 66.7 (5.9) years (range, 52-96). Most patients were married (58%) or divorced/separated (27%). All were VA priority 1 to 5 (no 6, 7, or 8); 50% were priority 1 with 50% to 100% service-connected disability. Another 29% were eligible for VA care by reason of low income, 17% had 10% to 40% service-connected disability, and 4% were otherwise disabled.

Disscussion

Elucidating the pathophysiology and risk of transformation from MGUS to MM is an ongoing endeavor, even 35 years after the end of US involvement in the Vietnam War. Our study sought to understand a relationship between AO exposure, risk of MGUS transforming to MM, and associated mortality in US Vietnam War veterans. The rate of transformation (MGUS progressing to active MM) is well cited at 1% per year.¹⁵ Here, we found 12% of our cohort had undergone this transformation over 10 years.

Vietnam War era veterans who were exposed to AO during the Operation Ranch Hand period had 2.4 times greater risk of developing MGUS compared with veterans not exposed to AO.⁸ Our study was not designed to look at this association of AO exposure and MGUS/MM as this was a retrospective review to assess the difference in outcomes based on AO exposure. We found that AO exposure is associated with a decrease in mortality in contrast to a prior study showing worse survival with individuals with AO exposure.¹⁰ Another single center study found no association between AO exposure and overall survival, but it did identify an increased risk of progression from MGUS to MM.¹¹ Our study did not show increased risk of transformation but did show positive effect on survival.

Black individuals have twice the risk of developing MM compared with White individuals and are diagnosed at a younger age (66 vs 70 years, respectively).¹⁶ Interestingly, Black race was a protective factor in our study. Given the length of time (35 years) elapsed since the Vietnam War ended, it is likely that most vulnerable Black veterans did not survive until our observation period.

HSCT, as expected, was a protective factor for veterans undergoing this treatment modality, but it is unclear why such a small number (8%) underwent HSCT as this is a standard of care in the management of MM. Obesity was also found to be a protective factor in a prior study, which was also seen in our study cohort.⁸

Limitations

This study was limited by its retrospective review of survivors among the Vietnam-era cohort several decades after the exposure of concern. Clinician notes and full historical data, such as date of onset for any disorder, were unavailable. These data also relied on the practitioners caring for the veterans to make the correct diagnosis with the associated code so that the data could be captured. Neither AO exposure nor diagnoses codes were verified against other sources of data; however, validation studies over the years have supported the accuracy of the diagnosis codes recorded in the VA EHR.

Conclusions

Because AO exposure is a nonmodifiable risk factor, focus should be placed on modifiable risk factors (eg, nicotine dependence, alcohol and substance use disorders, underlying comorbid conditions) as these were associated with worse outcomes. Future studies will look at the correlation of AO exposure, cytogenetics, and clinical outcomes in these veterans to learn how best to identify their disease course and optimize their care in the latter part of their life.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System and Baylor Scott and White Health, both in Temple and Veterans Affairs Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System, Leeds.

Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 1% to 2% of all cancers and slightly more than 17% of hematologic malignancies in the United States.¹ MM is characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of immunoglobulin (Ig)-producing plasma cells with ≥ 10% clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow or biopsy-proven bony or soft tissue plasmacytoma, plus presence of related organ or tissue impairment or presence of a biomarker associated with near-inevitable progression to end-organ damage.²

Background

Up to 97% of patients with MM will have a monoclonal (M) protein produced and secreted by the malignant plasma cells, which can be detected by protein electrophoresis of the serum and an aliquot of urine from a 24-hour collection combined with immunofixation of the serum and urine. The M protein in MM usually consists of IgG 50% of the time and light chains 16% of the time. Patients who lack detectable M protein are considered to have nonsecretory myeloma. MM presents with end-organ damage, which includes hypercalcemia, renal dysfunction, anemia, or lytic bone lesions. Patients with MM frequently present with renal insufficiency due to cast nephropathy or light chain deposition disease.³

MM is thought to evolve from monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance (MGUS), an asymptomatic premalignant stage of clonal plasma cell proliferation with a risk of progression to active myeloma at 1% per year.^4,5 Epidemiologic data suggest that people who develop MM have a genetic predisposition, but risk factors may develop or be acquired, such as age, immunosuppression, and environmental exposures. To better assess what causes transformation from MGUS to MM, it is important to identify agents that may cause this second hit.⁶

In November 1961, President John F. Kennedy authorized the start of Operation Ranch Hand, the US Air Force’s herbicide program during the Vietnam War. Twenty million gallons of various chemicals were sprayed in Vietnam, eastern Laos, and parts of Cambodia to defoliate rural land, depriving guerillas of their support base. Agent Orange (AO) was one of these chemicals; it is a mixed herbicide with traces of dioxin, a compound that has been associated with major health problems among exposed individuals.⁷ Several studies have evaluated exposure to AO and its potential harmful repercussions. Studies have assessed the link between AO and MGUS as well as AO to various leukemias, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.^8,9 Other studies have shown the relationship between AO exposure and worse outcomes in persons with MM.¹⁰ To date, only a single abstract from a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center has investigated the relationships between AO exposure and MGUS, MM, and the rate of transformation. The VA study of patients seen from 2005 to 2015 in Detroit, Michigan, found that AO exposure led to an increase in cumulative incidence rate of MGUS/MM, suggesting possible changes in disease biology and genetics.¹¹

In this study, we aimed to determine the incidence of transformation of MGUS to MM in patients with and without exposure to AO. We then analyzed survival as a function of AO exposure, transformation, and clinical and sociodemographic variables. We also explored the impact of psychosocial variables and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), a standard of treatment for MM.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study assembled electronic health record (EHR) data from the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VA Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System Institutional Review Board granted a waiver of consent for this record review. Eligible patients were Vietnam-era veterans who were in the military during the time that AO was used (1961-1971). Veterans were included if they were being cared for and received a diagnosis for MGUS or MM between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2015 (all prevalent cases fiscal years 2010-2015). Cases were excluded if there was illogical death data or if age, race, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), or prior-year diagnostic data were missing.

Measures

Patients were followed through April 2020. Presence of MGUS was defined by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code 273.1. MM was identified by ICD-9 diagnosis codes 203.00, 203.01, and 203.02. The study index date was the earliest date of diagnosis of MGUS or MM in fiscal years 2010-2015. It was suspected that some patients with MM may have had a history of MGUS prior to this period. Therefore, for patients with MM, historical diagnosis of MGUS was extracted going back through the earliest data in the CDW (October 1999). Patients diagnosed with both MGUS and MM were considered transformation patients.

Other measures included age at index date, sex, race, ethnicity, VA priority status (a value 1 to 8 summarizing why the veteran qualified for VA care, such as military service-connected disability or very low income), and AO exposure authenticated per VA enrollment files and disability records. Service years were separated into 1961 to 1968 and 1969 to 1971 to match a change in the formulation of AO associated with decreased carcinogenic effect. Comorbidity data from the year prior to first MGUS/MM diagnosis in the observation period were extracted. Lifestyle factors associated with development of MGUS/MM were determined using the following codes: obesity per BMI calculation or diagnosis (ICD-9, 278.0), tobacco use per diagnosis (ICD-9, 305.1, V15.82), and survival from MGUS/MM diagnosis index date to date of death from any cause. Comorbidity was assessed using ICD-9 diagnosis codes to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), which includes cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, liver and kidney diseases, cancers, and metastatic solid tumors. Cancers were omitted from our adapted CCI to avoid collinearity in the multivariable models. The theoretical maximum CCI score in this study was 25.^12,13 Additional conditions known to be associated with variation in outcomes among veterans using the VA were indicated, including major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol use disorder (AUD), substance use disorder (SUD), and common chronic disease (hypertension, lipid disorders).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Sample characteristics were represented by frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and SDs (or medians and ranges where appropriate) for continuous variables. A χ² test (or Fisher exact test when cell counts were low) assessed associations in bivariate comparisons. A 2-sample t test (or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate) assessed differences in continuous variables between 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier curves depicted the unadjusted relationship of AO exposure to survival. Cox proportional hazards survival models examined an unadjusted model containing only the AO exposure indicator as a predictor and adjusted models were used for demographic and clinical factors for MGUS and patients with MM separately.

Predictors were age in decades, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, race, nicotine dependence, obesity, overweight, AUD, SUD, major depressive disorder, PTSD, and the adapted CCI. When modeling patients with MM, MGUS was added to the model to identify the transformation group. The interaction of AO with transformation was also analyzed for patients with MM. Results were reported as hazard ratios (HR) with their 95% CI.

Results

We identified 18,215 veterans diagnosed with either MGUS or MM during fiscal years 2010-2015 with 16,366 meeting inclusion criteria. Patients were excluded for missing data on exposure (n = 334), age (n = 12), race (n = 1058), ethnicity (n = 164), diagnosis (n = 47), treatment (n = 56), and BMI (n = 178). All were Vietnam War era veterans; 14 also served in other eras.

The cohort was 98.5% male (Table 1). Twenty-nine percent were Black veterans, 65% were White veterans, and 4% of individuals reported Hispanic ethnicity. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 66.7 (5.9) years (range, 52-96). Most patients were married (58%) or divorced/separated (27%). All were VA priority 1 to 5 (no 6, 7, or 8); 50% were priority 1 with 50% to 100% service-connected disability. Another 29% were eligible for VA care by reason of low income, 17% had 10% to 40% service-connected disability, and 4% were otherwise disabled.

Disscussion

Elucidating the pathophysiology and risk of transformation from MGUS to MM is an ongoing endeavor, even 35 years after the end of US involvement in the Vietnam War. Our study sought to understand a relationship between AO exposure, risk of MGUS transforming to MM, and associated mortality in US Vietnam War veterans. The rate of transformation (MGUS progressing to active MM) is well cited at 1% per year.¹⁵ Here, we found 12% of our cohort had undergone this transformation over 10 years.

Vietnam War era veterans who were exposed to AO during the Operation Ranch Hand period had 2.4 times greater risk of developing MGUS compared with veterans not exposed to AO.⁸ Our study was not designed to look at this association of AO exposure and MGUS/MM as this was a retrospective review to assess the difference in outcomes based on AO exposure. We found that AO exposure is associated with a decrease in mortality in contrast to a prior study showing worse survival with individuals with AO exposure.¹⁰ Another single center study found no association between AO exposure and overall survival, but it did identify an increased risk of progression from MGUS to MM.¹¹ Our study did not show increased risk of transformation but did show positive effect on survival.

Black individuals have twice the risk of developing MM compared with White individuals and are diagnosed at a younger age (66 vs 70 years, respectively).¹⁶ Interestingly, Black race was a protective factor in our study. Given the length of time (35 years) elapsed since the Vietnam War ended, it is likely that most vulnerable Black veterans did not survive until our observation period.

HSCT, as expected, was a protective factor for veterans undergoing this treatment modality, but it is unclear why such a small number (8%) underwent HSCT as this is a standard of care in the management of MM. Obesity was also found to be a protective factor in a prior study, which was also seen in our study cohort.⁸

Limitations

This study was limited by its retrospective review of survivors among the Vietnam-era cohort several decades after the exposure of concern. Clinician notes and full historical data, such as date of onset for any disorder, were unavailable. These data also relied on the practitioners caring for the veterans to make the correct diagnosis with the associated code so that the data could be captured. Neither AO exposure nor diagnoses codes were verified against other sources of data; however, validation studies over the years have supported the accuracy of the diagnosis codes recorded in the VA EHR.

Conclusions

Because AO exposure is a nonmodifiable risk factor, focus should be placed on modifiable risk factors (eg, nicotine dependence, alcohol and substance use disorders, underlying comorbid conditions) as these were associated with worse outcomes. Future studies will look at the correlation of AO exposure, cytogenetics, and clinical outcomes in these veterans to learn how best to identify their disease course and optimize their care in the latter part of their life.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System and Baylor Scott and White Health, both in Temple and Veterans Affairs Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System, Leeds.

Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 1% to 2% of all cancers and slightly more than 17% of hematologic malignancies in the United States.¹ MM is characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of immunoglobulin (Ig)-producing plasma cells with ≥ 10% clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow or biopsy-proven bony or soft tissue plasmacytoma, plus presence of related organ or tissue impairment or presence of a biomarker associated with near-inevitable progression to end-organ damage.²

Background

Up to 97% of patients with MM will have a monoclonal (M) protein produced and secreted by the malignant plasma cells, which can be detected by protein electrophoresis of the serum and an aliquot of urine from a 24-hour collection combined with immunofixation of the serum and urine. The M protein in MM usually consists of IgG 50% of the time and light chains 16% of the time. Patients who lack detectable M protein are considered to have nonsecretory myeloma. MM presents with end-organ damage, which includes hypercalcemia, renal dysfunction, anemia, or lytic bone lesions. Patients with MM frequently present with renal insufficiency due to cast nephropathy or light chain deposition disease.³

MM is thought to evolve from monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance (MGUS), an asymptomatic premalignant stage of clonal plasma cell proliferation with a risk of progression to active myeloma at 1% per year.^4,5 Epidemiologic data suggest that people who develop MM have a genetic predisposition, but risk factors may develop or be acquired, such as age, immunosuppression, and environmental exposures. To better assess what causes transformation from MGUS to MM, it is important to identify agents that may cause this second hit.⁶

In November 1961, President John F. Kennedy authorized the start of Operation Ranch Hand, the US Air Force’s herbicide program during the Vietnam War. Twenty million gallons of various chemicals were sprayed in Vietnam, eastern Laos, and parts of Cambodia to defoliate rural land, depriving guerillas of their support base. Agent Orange (AO) was one of these chemicals; it is a mixed herbicide with traces of dioxin, a compound that has been associated with major health problems among exposed individuals.⁷ Several studies have evaluated exposure to AO and its potential harmful repercussions. Studies have assessed the link between AO and MGUS as well as AO to various leukemias, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.^8,9 Other studies have shown the relationship between AO exposure and worse outcomes in persons with MM.¹⁰ To date, only a single abstract from a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center has investigated the relationships between AO exposure and MGUS, MM, and the rate of transformation. The VA study of patients seen from 2005 to 2015 in Detroit, Michigan, found that AO exposure led to an increase in cumulative incidence rate of MGUS/MM, suggesting possible changes in disease biology and genetics.¹¹

In this study, we aimed to determine the incidence of transformation of MGUS to MM in patients with and without exposure to AO. We then analyzed survival as a function of AO exposure, transformation, and clinical and sociodemographic variables. We also explored the impact of psychosocial variables and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), a standard of treatment for MM.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study assembled electronic health record (EHR) data from the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VA Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System Institutional Review Board granted a waiver of consent for this record review. Eligible patients were Vietnam-era veterans who were in the military during the time that AO was used (1961-1971). Veterans were included if they were being cared for and received a diagnosis for MGUS or MM between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2015 (all prevalent cases fiscal years 2010-2015). Cases were excluded if there was illogical death data or if age, race, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), or prior-year diagnostic data were missing.

Measures

Patients were followed through April 2020. Presence of MGUS was defined by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code 273.1. MM was identified by ICD-9 diagnosis codes 203.00, 203.01, and 203.02. The study index date was the earliest date of diagnosis of MGUS or MM in fiscal years 2010-2015. It was suspected that some patients with MM may have had a history of MGUS prior to this period. Therefore, for patients with MM, historical diagnosis of MGUS was extracted going back through the earliest data in the CDW (October 1999). Patients diagnosed with both MGUS and MM were considered transformation patients.

Other measures included age at index date, sex, race, ethnicity, VA priority status (a value 1 to 8 summarizing why the veteran qualified for VA care, such as military service-connected disability or very low income), and AO exposure authenticated per VA enrollment files and disability records. Service years were separated into 1961 to 1968 and 1969 to 1971 to match a change in the formulation of AO associated with decreased carcinogenic effect. Comorbidity data from the year prior to first MGUS/MM diagnosis in the observation period were extracted. Lifestyle factors associated with development of MGUS/MM were determined using the following codes: obesity per BMI calculation or diagnosis (ICD-9, 278.0), tobacco use per diagnosis (ICD-9, 305.1, V15.82), and survival from MGUS/MM diagnosis index date to date of death from any cause. Comorbidity was assessed using ICD-9 diagnosis codes to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), which includes cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, liver and kidney diseases, cancers, and metastatic solid tumors. Cancers were omitted from our adapted CCI to avoid collinearity in the multivariable models. The theoretical maximum CCI score in this study was 25.^12,13 Additional conditions known to be associated with variation in outcomes among veterans using the VA were indicated, including major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol use disorder (AUD), substance use disorder (SUD), and common chronic disease (hypertension, lipid disorders).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Sample characteristics were represented by frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and SDs (or medians and ranges where appropriate) for continuous variables. A χ² test (or Fisher exact test when cell counts were low) assessed associations in bivariate comparisons. A 2-sample t test (or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate) assessed differences in continuous variables between 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier curves depicted the unadjusted relationship of AO exposure to survival. Cox proportional hazards survival models examined an unadjusted model containing only the AO exposure indicator as a predictor and adjusted models were used for demographic and clinical factors for MGUS and patients with MM separately.

Predictors were age in decades, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, race, nicotine dependence, obesity, overweight, AUD, SUD, major depressive disorder, PTSD, and the adapted CCI. When modeling patients with MM, MGUS was added to the model to identify the transformation group. The interaction of AO with transformation was also analyzed for patients with MM. Results were reported as hazard ratios (HR) with their 95% CI.

Results

We identified 18,215 veterans diagnosed with either MGUS or MM during fiscal years 2010-2015 with 16,366 meeting inclusion criteria. Patients were excluded for missing data on exposure (n = 334), age (n = 12), race (n = 1058), ethnicity (n = 164), diagnosis (n = 47), treatment (n = 56), and BMI (n = 178). All were Vietnam War era veterans; 14 also served in other eras.

The cohort was 98.5% male (Table 1). Twenty-nine percent were Black veterans, 65% were White veterans, and 4% of individuals reported Hispanic ethnicity. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 66.7 (5.9) years (range, 52-96). Most patients were married (58%) or divorced/separated (27%). All were VA priority 1 to 5 (no 6, 7, or 8); 50% were priority 1 with 50% to 100% service-connected disability. Another 29% were eligible for VA care by reason of low income, 17% had 10% to 40% service-connected disability, and 4% were otherwise disabled.

Disscussion

Elucidating the pathophysiology and risk of transformation from MGUS to MM is an ongoing endeavor, even 35 years after the end of US involvement in the Vietnam War. Our study sought to understand a relationship between AO exposure, risk of MGUS transforming to MM, and associated mortality in US Vietnam War veterans. The rate of transformation (MGUS progressing to active MM) is well cited at 1% per year.¹⁵ Here, we found 12% of our cohort had undergone this transformation over 10 years.

Vietnam War era veterans who were exposed to AO during the Operation Ranch Hand period had 2.4 times greater risk of developing MGUS compared with veterans not exposed to AO.⁸ Our study was not designed to look at this association of AO exposure and MGUS/MM as this was a retrospective review to assess the difference in outcomes based on AO exposure. We found that AO exposure is associated with a decrease in mortality in contrast to a prior study showing worse survival with individuals with AO exposure.¹⁰ Another single center study found no association between AO exposure and overall survival, but it did identify an increased risk of progression from MGUS to MM.¹¹ Our study did not show increased risk of transformation but did show positive effect on survival.

Black individuals have twice the risk of developing MM compared with White individuals and are diagnosed at a younger age (66 vs 70 years, respectively).¹⁶ Interestingly, Black race was a protective factor in our study. Given the length of time (35 years) elapsed since the Vietnam War ended, it is likely that most vulnerable Black veterans did not survive until our observation period.

HSCT, as expected, was a protective factor for veterans undergoing this treatment modality, but it is unclear why such a small number (8%) underwent HSCT as this is a standard of care in the management of MM. Obesity was also found to be a protective factor in a prior study, which was also seen in our study cohort.⁸

Limitations

This study was limited by its retrospective review of survivors among the Vietnam-era cohort several decades after the exposure of concern. Clinician notes and full historical data, such as date of onset for any disorder, were unavailable. These data also relied on the practitioners caring for the veterans to make the correct diagnosis with the associated code so that the data could be captured. Neither AO exposure nor diagnoses codes were verified against other sources of data; however, validation studies over the years have supported the accuracy of the diagnosis codes recorded in the VA EHR.

Conclusions

Because AO exposure is a nonmodifiable risk factor, focus should be placed on modifiable risk factors (eg, nicotine dependence, alcohol and substance use disorders, underlying comorbid conditions) as these were associated with worse outcomes. Future studies will look at the correlation of AO exposure, cytogenetics, and clinical outcomes in these veterans to learn how best to identify their disease course and optimize their care in the latter part of their life.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System and Baylor Scott and White Health, both in Temple and Veterans Affairs Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System, Leeds.