Clinical Topics & News

It’s rare for mothers with COVID-19 to transfer the infection to their newborns, according to a new small study.

The research, published in JAMA Network Open, found that newborns of mothers infected with the COVID-19 virus were able to develop their own immune defenses via their mother’s breast milk. Researchers detected antibodies in the infants’ saliva.

“It is the first time that this mechanism has been demonstrated,” said study author Rita Carsetti, MD, head of immunology diagnostics for Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome. “We now know how breast milk can help babies develop their immune defenses. The system could work the same way for many other pathogens, which are present in the mother during breastfeeding.”

Dr. Carsetti and colleagues examined data from 28 pregnant women who tested positive for COVID-19 and who gave birth at Policlinico Umberto I in Rome between November 2020 and May 2021, and their newborns. They investigated the immune responses of the mothers and their newborns by detecting spike-specific antibodies in serum, and the mucosal immune response was assessed by measuring specific antibodies in maternal breast milk and infant saliva 48 hours after delivery and 2 months later.

Twenty-one mothers and their newborns completed the 2 months of follow-up. Researchers found that the majority of the mothers had mild symptoms of COVID-19, while only three of them were admitted for worsening condition. There was only one reported case of a possible vertical transmission – transmitted in utero – and one case of a horizontal infection through droplets or respiratory secretions, which occurred when the newborn was taken home.

The results of the study showed that antibodies specific to the virus were present in the mothers’ blood at 2 months after delivery, but not at 48 hours. However, in milk, specific antibodies were already present 48 hours after delivery.

Therefore, after 48 hours, the breastfed babies had specific mucosal antibodies against COVID-19 in their saliva that the other newborns did not have. Two months later, these antibodies continued to be present even though the mothers had stopped producing them.

The findings suggest that breast milk offers protection by transferring the antibodies produced by the mother to the baby, but also by helping them to produce their own immune defenses.

“I am not surprised that infants of mothers who had COVID-19 infection in the peripartum period pass anti-spike protein IgA to their infants,” J. Howard Smart, MD, FAAP, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “This confirmation is good news for breastfeeding mothers.

“I wonder whether we really know these infants did not become infected, and produce their own antibodies,” said Dr. Smart, chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said having COVID-19 should not stop mothers from giving their children breast milk. The organization also said that the chance of COVID-19 passing through the breast milk and causing infection in the newborn infant is slim.

“Breast milk also helps protect babies from infections, including infections of the ears, lungs, and digestive system. For these reasons, having COVID-19 should not stop you from giving your baby breast milk,” according to ACOG’s website.

Similar studies on mothers who received the COVID-19 vaccination rather than being infected would be interesting, Dr. Smart added.

The authors of the current study plan to broaden their research by evaluating the response of pregnant mothers vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 for the presence of antibodies in the milk and the immunity of their newborns. Dr. Carsetti said her team plans to expand the study to other infections, such as cytomegalovirus and respiratory syncytial virus.

None of the researchers or commentators had financial disclosures.

It’s rare for mothers with COVID-19 to transfer the infection to their newborns, according to a new small study.

The research, published in JAMA Network Open, found that newborns of mothers infected with the COVID-19 virus were able to develop their own immune defenses via their mother’s breast milk. Researchers detected antibodies in the infants’ saliva.

“It is the first time that this mechanism has been demonstrated,” said study author Rita Carsetti, MD, head of immunology diagnostics for Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome. “We now know how breast milk can help babies develop their immune defenses. The system could work the same way for many other pathogens, which are present in the mother during breastfeeding.”

Dr. Carsetti and colleagues examined data from 28 pregnant women who tested positive for COVID-19 and who gave birth at Policlinico Umberto I in Rome between November 2020 and May 2021, and their newborns. They investigated the immune responses of the mothers and their newborns by detecting spike-specific antibodies in serum, and the mucosal immune response was assessed by measuring specific antibodies in maternal breast milk and infant saliva 48 hours after delivery and 2 months later.

Twenty-one mothers and their newborns completed the 2 months of follow-up. Researchers found that the majority of the mothers had mild symptoms of COVID-19, while only three of them were admitted for worsening condition. There was only one reported case of a possible vertical transmission – transmitted in utero – and one case of a horizontal infection through droplets or respiratory secretions, which occurred when the newborn was taken home.

The results of the study showed that antibodies specific to the virus were present in the mothers’ blood at 2 months after delivery, but not at 48 hours. However, in milk, specific antibodies were already present 48 hours after delivery.

Therefore, after 48 hours, the breastfed babies had specific mucosal antibodies against COVID-19 in their saliva that the other newborns did not have. Two months later, these antibodies continued to be present even though the mothers had stopped producing them.

The findings suggest that breast milk offers protection by transferring the antibodies produced by the mother to the baby, but also by helping them to produce their own immune defenses.

“I am not surprised that infants of mothers who had COVID-19 infection in the peripartum period pass anti-spike protein IgA to their infants,” J. Howard Smart, MD, FAAP, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “This confirmation is good news for breastfeeding mothers.

“I wonder whether we really know these infants did not become infected, and produce their own antibodies,” said Dr. Smart, chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said having COVID-19 should not stop mothers from giving their children breast milk. The organization also said that the chance of COVID-19 passing through the breast milk and causing infection in the newborn infant is slim.

“Breast milk also helps protect babies from infections, including infections of the ears, lungs, and digestive system. For these reasons, having COVID-19 should not stop you from giving your baby breast milk,” according to ACOG’s website.

Similar studies on mothers who received the COVID-19 vaccination rather than being infected would be interesting, Dr. Smart added.

The authors of the current study plan to broaden their research by evaluating the response of pregnant mothers vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 for the presence of antibodies in the milk and the immunity of their newborns. Dr. Carsetti said her team plans to expand the study to other infections, such as cytomegalovirus and respiratory syncytial virus.

None of the researchers or commentators had financial disclosures.

It’s rare for mothers with COVID-19 to transfer the infection to their newborns, according to a new small study.

The research, published in JAMA Network Open, found that newborns of mothers infected with the COVID-19 virus were able to develop their own immune defenses via their mother’s breast milk. Researchers detected antibodies in the infants’ saliva.

“It is the first time that this mechanism has been demonstrated,” said study author Rita Carsetti, MD, head of immunology diagnostics for Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome. “We now know how breast milk can help babies develop their immune defenses. The system could work the same way for many other pathogens, which are present in the mother during breastfeeding.”

Dr. Carsetti and colleagues examined data from 28 pregnant women who tested positive for COVID-19 and who gave birth at Policlinico Umberto I in Rome between November 2020 and May 2021, and their newborns. They investigated the immune responses of the mothers and their newborns by detecting spike-specific antibodies in serum, and the mucosal immune response was assessed by measuring specific antibodies in maternal breast milk and infant saliva 48 hours after delivery and 2 months later.

Twenty-one mothers and their newborns completed the 2 months of follow-up. Researchers found that the majority of the mothers had mild symptoms of COVID-19, while only three of them were admitted for worsening condition. There was only one reported case of a possible vertical transmission – transmitted in utero – and one case of a horizontal infection through droplets or respiratory secretions, which occurred when the newborn was taken home.

The results of the study showed that antibodies specific to the virus were present in the mothers’ blood at 2 months after delivery, but not at 48 hours. However, in milk, specific antibodies were already present 48 hours after delivery.

Therefore, after 48 hours, the breastfed babies had specific mucosal antibodies against COVID-19 in their saliva that the other newborns did not have. Two months later, these antibodies continued to be present even though the mothers had stopped producing them.

The findings suggest that breast milk offers protection by transferring the antibodies produced by the mother to the baby, but also by helping them to produce their own immune defenses.

“I am not surprised that infants of mothers who had COVID-19 infection in the peripartum period pass anti-spike protein IgA to their infants,” J. Howard Smart, MD, FAAP, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “This confirmation is good news for breastfeeding mothers.

“I wonder whether we really know these infants did not become infected, and produce their own antibodies,” said Dr. Smart, chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said having COVID-19 should not stop mothers from giving their children breast milk. The organization also said that the chance of COVID-19 passing through the breast milk and causing infection in the newborn infant is slim.

“Breast milk also helps protect babies from infections, including infections of the ears, lungs, and digestive system. For these reasons, having COVID-19 should not stop you from giving your baby breast milk,” according to ACOG’s website.

Similar studies on mothers who received the COVID-19 vaccination rather than being infected would be interesting, Dr. Smart added.

The authors of the current study plan to broaden their research by evaluating the response of pregnant mothers vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 for the presence of antibodies in the milk and the immunity of their newborns. Dr. Carsetti said her team plans to expand the study to other infections, such as cytomegalovirus and respiratory syncytial virus.

None of the researchers or commentators had financial disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – People with obesity may be able to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer with weight loss surgery or medication, researchers say.

“We need to have conversations with our patients in the clinic and educate them that they have these resources available,” said Aakash Desai, MD, a hospitalist at MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, in an interview with this news organization.

Dr. Desai and colleagues found that sleeve gastrectomy and four medications were associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer but Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy and orlistat were not.

Coauthor Zryan Shwani, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, D.C., presented the findings here at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Working with an underserved population with high rates of obesity in northeastern Ohio, the researchers wondered how surgery and medication could affect these patients.

They analyzed data from the IBM Explorys clinical database, which compiles and standardizes data from electronic medical records on about 74 million patients from more than 300 U.S. hospitals. Consistent with previous studies, they determined that patients with obesity in the database were 2.5 times more likely than people with a healthy weight to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 2.45-2.51).

Zeroing in on people who had weight loss interventions, they included adults aged 18-75 years who had undergone either Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy or sleeve gastrectomy, or had taken the medications liraglutide, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, bupropion/naltrexone, or lorcaserin.

They excluded patients with Lynch syndrome, intestinal polyposis syndrome, a family history of gastrointestinal malignancy, inflammatory bowel disease, or tobacco or alcohol abuse. Patients who had taken one of the weight loss medications and also had type 2 diabetes were excluded. They did not include patients who had undergone gastric banding because it has become less popular.

For the weight loss medication group, they found 117,730 patients who met their criteria. For the surgery group, 43,050 patients met the criteria.

In analyzing the colorectal cancer rates, they included only diagnoses of malignant neoplasms made 2 years after the interventions.

They compared these patients to a control group of 52,540 people matched in age, with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m² who did not undergo weight loss surgery or take weight loss medication.

Among the 9,370 patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy, 50 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 400 had benign polyps. Their rate of colorectal cancer was not statistically different from people who didn’t have surgery (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.82-1.43). The rate of benign polyps after Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy was greater (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90).

On the other hand, among the 33,680 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 50 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, a lower rate than in the population who didn’t have surgery (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.39). Their risk of benign polyps was also reduced (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.40-0.50).

All of the medications were significantly associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer, except orlistat (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25).

The finding on Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy agreed with studies from England and Nordic countries showing double the risk of colorectal cancer in those patients but conflicted with a French study showing decreased risk, Dr. Shwani said.

While the study doesn’t establish a reason why Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy was less beneficial, other researchers have associated the procedure with biomarkers of inflammation, Dr. Shwani said. “It’s inconsistent, and I don’t think we have a clear answer why.”

As a retrospective analysis, the study could not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between surgery or medication and cancer, or adjust for such factors as diet, exercise, or genes, he acknowledged.

Colorectal cancer is just one outcome to consider when deciding whether to undergo weight loss surgery or take weight loss drugs, said session moderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“The most important outcome that should be investigated is the survival of the patients after obesity surgery,” he told this news organization. “The second would be the quality of life of those patients. Colon cancer is preventable if you are having regular colonoscopies.”

Other studies have not shown much difference between patients who have weight loss surgery and those who don’t, he added.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Desai and Dr. Shwani have reported receiving grant funding from Merck. Dr. Yaghoobi has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

LAS VEGAS – People with obesity may be able to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer with weight loss surgery or medication, researchers say.

“We need to have conversations with our patients in the clinic and educate them that they have these resources available,” said Aakash Desai, MD, a hospitalist at MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, in an interview with this news organization.

Dr. Desai and colleagues found that sleeve gastrectomy and four medications were associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer but Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy and orlistat were not.

Coauthor Zryan Shwani, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, D.C., presented the findings here at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Working with an underserved population with high rates of obesity in northeastern Ohio, the researchers wondered how surgery and medication could affect these patients.

They analyzed data from the IBM Explorys clinical database, which compiles and standardizes data from electronic medical records on about 74 million patients from more than 300 U.S. hospitals. Consistent with previous studies, they determined that patients with obesity in the database were 2.5 times more likely than people with a healthy weight to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 2.45-2.51).

Zeroing in on people who had weight loss interventions, they included adults aged 18-75 years who had undergone either Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy or sleeve gastrectomy, or had taken the medications liraglutide, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, bupropion/naltrexone, or lorcaserin.

They excluded patients with Lynch syndrome, intestinal polyposis syndrome, a family history of gastrointestinal malignancy, inflammatory bowel disease, or tobacco or alcohol abuse. Patients who had taken one of the weight loss medications and also had type 2 diabetes were excluded. They did not include patients who had undergone gastric banding because it has become less popular.

For the weight loss medication group, they found 117,730 patients who met their criteria. For the surgery group, 43,050 patients met the criteria.

In analyzing the colorectal cancer rates, they included only diagnoses of malignant neoplasms made 2 years after the interventions.

They compared these patients to a control group of 52,540 people matched in age, with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m² who did not undergo weight loss surgery or take weight loss medication.

Among the 9,370 patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy, 50 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 400 had benign polyps. Their rate of colorectal cancer was not statistically different from people who didn’t have surgery (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.82-1.43). The rate of benign polyps after Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy was greater (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90).

On the other hand, among the 33,680 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 50 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, a lower rate than in the population who didn’t have surgery (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.39). Their risk of benign polyps was also reduced (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.40-0.50).

All of the medications were significantly associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer, except orlistat (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25).

The finding on Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy agreed with studies from England and Nordic countries showing double the risk of colorectal cancer in those patients but conflicted with a French study showing decreased risk, Dr. Shwani said.

While the study doesn’t establish a reason why Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy was less beneficial, other researchers have associated the procedure with biomarkers of inflammation, Dr. Shwani said. “It’s inconsistent, and I don’t think we have a clear answer why.”

As a retrospective analysis, the study could not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between surgery or medication and cancer, or adjust for such factors as diet, exercise, or genes, he acknowledged.

Colorectal cancer is just one outcome to consider when deciding whether to undergo weight loss surgery or take weight loss drugs, said session moderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“The most important outcome that should be investigated is the survival of the patients after obesity surgery,” he told this news organization. “The second would be the quality of life of those patients. Colon cancer is preventable if you are having regular colonoscopies.”

Other studies have not shown much difference between patients who have weight loss surgery and those who don’t, he added.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Desai and Dr. Shwani have reported receiving grant funding from Merck. Dr. Yaghoobi has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

LAS VEGAS – People with obesity may be able to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer with weight loss surgery or medication, researchers say.

“We need to have conversations with our patients in the clinic and educate them that they have these resources available,” said Aakash Desai, MD, a hospitalist at MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, in an interview with this news organization.

Dr. Desai and colleagues found that sleeve gastrectomy and four medications were associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer but Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy and orlistat were not.

Coauthor Zryan Shwani, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, D.C., presented the findings here at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Working with an underserved population with high rates of obesity in northeastern Ohio, the researchers wondered how surgery and medication could affect these patients.

They analyzed data from the IBM Explorys clinical database, which compiles and standardizes data from electronic medical records on about 74 million patients from more than 300 U.S. hospitals. Consistent with previous studies, they determined that patients with obesity in the database were 2.5 times more likely than people with a healthy weight to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 2.45-2.51).

Zeroing in on people who had weight loss interventions, they included adults aged 18-75 years who had undergone either Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy or sleeve gastrectomy, or had taken the medications liraglutide, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, bupropion/naltrexone, or lorcaserin.

They excluded patients with Lynch syndrome, intestinal polyposis syndrome, a family history of gastrointestinal malignancy, inflammatory bowel disease, or tobacco or alcohol abuse. Patients who had taken one of the weight loss medications and also had type 2 diabetes were excluded. They did not include patients who had undergone gastric banding because it has become less popular.

For the weight loss medication group, they found 117,730 patients who met their criteria. For the surgery group, 43,050 patients met the criteria.

In analyzing the colorectal cancer rates, they included only diagnoses of malignant neoplasms made 2 years after the interventions.

They compared these patients to a control group of 52,540 people matched in age, with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m² who did not undergo weight loss surgery or take weight loss medication.

Among the 9,370 patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy, 50 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 400 had benign polyps. Their rate of colorectal cancer was not statistically different from people who didn’t have surgery (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.82-1.43). The rate of benign polyps after Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy was greater (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90).

On the other hand, among the 33,680 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 50 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, a lower rate than in the population who didn’t have surgery (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.39). Their risk of benign polyps was also reduced (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.40-0.50).

All of the medications were significantly associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer, except orlistat (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25).

The finding on Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy agreed with studies from England and Nordic countries showing double the risk of colorectal cancer in those patients but conflicted with a French study showing decreased risk, Dr. Shwani said.

While the study doesn’t establish a reason why Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy was less beneficial, other researchers have associated the procedure with biomarkers of inflammation, Dr. Shwani said. “It’s inconsistent, and I don’t think we have a clear answer why.”

As a retrospective analysis, the study could not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between surgery or medication and cancer, or adjust for such factors as diet, exercise, or genes, he acknowledged.

Colorectal cancer is just one outcome to consider when deciding whether to undergo weight loss surgery or take weight loss drugs, said session moderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“The most important outcome that should be investigated is the survival of the patients after obesity surgery,” he told this news organization. “The second would be the quality of life of those patients. Colon cancer is preventable if you are having regular colonoscopies.”

Other studies have not shown much difference between patients who have weight loss surgery and those who don’t, he added.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Desai and Dr. Shwani have reported receiving grant funding from Merck. Dr. Yaghoobi has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed at progressive lesions in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was beneficial and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), suggest clinical trial results presented this week.

Patients treated with SBRT had a median PFS of 44 weeks, compared with 9 weeks for those who received standard care.

However, no benefit was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer. There was no significant difference in PFS between the two groups (18 weeks with SBRT vs. 19 weeks with standard care).

“In this preplanned interim analysis, we demonstrated the benefit of SBRT to sites of oligoprogression on overall progression-free survival, which was the primary endpoint,” said lead author C. Jillian Tsai, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and director of metastatic disease radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The difference was driven by the substantial response in [this] NSCLC cohort.”

There was no benefit of SBRT seen in the breast cohort, she noted, and most breast patients developed new lesions upon further progression.

Dr. Tsai and colleagues are planning to close the trial early, after the interim analysis established the benefit of SBRT. They are now investigating why SBRT was beneficial in NSCLC but not in breast cancer.

The findings were presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

Dr. Tsai explained that the current standard of care for patients with oligoprogressive metastatic NSCLC is to switch to a different targeted therapy or chemotherapy following progression, but options may be limited. Efficacy for second-line therapy can be poor, with PFS ranging from about 4 months to 10 months for NSCLC, “and after second line, efficacy for third and fourth lines is even poorer,” she said.

Similarly, for breast cancer, PFS ranges from about 9 months to 20 months for estrogen-receptor positive patients. “But for triple negative patients, there really is no standard of care and PFS is poor,” Dr. Tsai said.
 

SBRT superior to standard of care

The authors hypothesized that there is an oligoprogressive state in metastatic cancer, in which disease control can be improved by applying local therapy to progressive lesions only.

The cohort included 102 patients with metastatic NSCLC or breast cancer who had received one or more lines of systemic therapy and had oligoprogressive lesions amenable to SBRT. There was no upper limit of nonprogressive lesions.

Oligoprogression was defined as Response Evaluation or Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors documented progression ≤5 individual lesions.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT to all progressive sites plus palliative standard of care or systemic SOC only. Systemic therapy was per physician’s discretion.

There were 58 patients with NSCLC (30 in the SBRT group) and 44 patients with breast cancer (22 in each group).

Most patients (75%) had more than one site of oligoprogression and 47% had more than 5 total metastatic lesions. About half of patients (54%) had received immunotherapy and the majority of those with NSCLC (86%) did not harbor an actionable driver mutation. About one-third (32%) of the breast cancer cohort were triple negative.

Patients were followed for a median of 45 weeks (58 weeks for living patients), by which time 78 (74%) had experienced further tumor progression and 39 (37%) had died.

Median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 31 weeks for SBRT and 11 weeks for palliative SOC (P = .002).

In multivariable analysis that stratified for factors including age, sex, lines of systemic therapy, and change of systemic therapy, the progression-free survival benefit of SBRT continued to remain substantial in the NSCLC cohort (hazard ratio: 0.38; P = .007).

Adverse events were higher in the SBRT group. Grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 23 (61%) of SBRT patients, and 15 (40%) of SOC patients (P = .13).
 

Hoped-for results, with a few caveats

Approached for comment on the new findings, Clifford Robinson, MD, professor of radiation oncology, chief of SBRT service, and director of clinical trials and informatics at Washington University, St. Louis, said the results tie in with previous findings.

There are multiple published or presented prospective randomized phase 2 and 3 trials in various disease sites that have explored the role of local therapy, including SBRT, for patients who present with oligometastatic disease.

“These studies have nearly uniformly shown improvements in progression-free and/or overall survival with the inclusion of local therapy,” he told this news organization. Dr. Robinson was not involved with the study.

He explained that relatively few patients present with oligometastatic disease. However, many patients present with more advanced disease, but after an initial course of systemic therapy, develop oligoprogression.

“There is tremendous appeal to using local therapy at the time of oligoprogression in lieu of switching systemic therapy,” said Dr. Robinson. “It allows patients to stay on systemic therapy that is otherwise effective for the remainder of their disease.”

First-line systemic therapies are the most effective and the most tolerable, he continued, and switching systemic therapy introduces the potential for more toxicity and less efficacy. Therefore, it has become increasingly popular to offer SBRT to one or a few sites of oligoprogressive disease based on the results of oligometastatic disease.

“However, there is no established prospective data to guide this practice,” he said. “This trial is the first to examine this carefully in lung and breast cancer patients, and this trial shows what we hoped to see – that use of SBRT after oligoprogression results in improved progression-free survival as compared with standard of care alone. And this was accomplished with limited toxicity.”

There are a few caveats, though, he pointed out. “Progression-free survival is defined as time to first progression or death,” he said. “Since we don’t know what the overall survival is in this abstract, it’s entirely possible that patients live for the same length of time, but just take longer to progress.”

Another caveat is that this was a planned interim analysis. “Typically, planned interim analyses occur to see if the trial should be stopped or to adjust the study based on results,” he said. “It’s unclear what the investigators will do with this information.”

“But overall, these are very exciting data and lend support to the increasingly common practice of treating oligoprogressive disease,” Dr. Robinson added. “Since most of the serious adverse events of SBRT occur later, longer follow-up is needed, although the median survival of patients may not reach that timepoint.”

“For now, practice should not be altered based on these interim results,” he added.

Dr. Tsai reported acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian and Galera and also receiving research funding from Varian. Dr. Robinson reports stock/ownership in Radialogica, acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Quantitative Radiology Solutions, research funding from Varian and Merck, and owning patents on systems for cardiac arrhythmias and ablation.

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed at progressive lesions in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was beneficial and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), suggest clinical trial results presented this week.

Patients treated with SBRT had a median PFS of 44 weeks, compared with 9 weeks for those who received standard care.

However, no benefit was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer. There was no significant difference in PFS between the two groups (18 weeks with SBRT vs. 19 weeks with standard care).

“In this preplanned interim analysis, we demonstrated the benefit of SBRT to sites of oligoprogression on overall progression-free survival, which was the primary endpoint,” said lead author C. Jillian Tsai, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and director of metastatic disease radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The difference was driven by the substantial response in [this] NSCLC cohort.”

There was no benefit of SBRT seen in the breast cohort, she noted, and most breast patients developed new lesions upon further progression.

Dr. Tsai and colleagues are planning to close the trial early, after the interim analysis established the benefit of SBRT. They are now investigating why SBRT was beneficial in NSCLC but not in breast cancer.

The findings were presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

Dr. Tsai explained that the current standard of care for patients with oligoprogressive metastatic NSCLC is to switch to a different targeted therapy or chemotherapy following progression, but options may be limited. Efficacy for second-line therapy can be poor, with PFS ranging from about 4 months to 10 months for NSCLC, “and after second line, efficacy for third and fourth lines is even poorer,” she said.

Similarly, for breast cancer, PFS ranges from about 9 months to 20 months for estrogen-receptor positive patients. “But for triple negative patients, there really is no standard of care and PFS is poor,” Dr. Tsai said.
 

SBRT superior to standard of care

The authors hypothesized that there is an oligoprogressive state in metastatic cancer, in which disease control can be improved by applying local therapy to progressive lesions only.

The cohort included 102 patients with metastatic NSCLC or breast cancer who had received one or more lines of systemic therapy and had oligoprogressive lesions amenable to SBRT. There was no upper limit of nonprogressive lesions.

Oligoprogression was defined as Response Evaluation or Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors documented progression ≤5 individual lesions.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT to all progressive sites plus palliative standard of care or systemic SOC only. Systemic therapy was per physician’s discretion.

There were 58 patients with NSCLC (30 in the SBRT group) and 44 patients with breast cancer (22 in each group).

Most patients (75%) had more than one site of oligoprogression and 47% had more than 5 total metastatic lesions. About half of patients (54%) had received immunotherapy and the majority of those with NSCLC (86%) did not harbor an actionable driver mutation. About one-third (32%) of the breast cancer cohort were triple negative.

Patients were followed for a median of 45 weeks (58 weeks for living patients), by which time 78 (74%) had experienced further tumor progression and 39 (37%) had died.

Median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 31 weeks for SBRT and 11 weeks for palliative SOC (P = .002).

In multivariable analysis that stratified for factors including age, sex, lines of systemic therapy, and change of systemic therapy, the progression-free survival benefit of SBRT continued to remain substantial in the NSCLC cohort (hazard ratio: 0.38; P = .007).

Adverse events were higher in the SBRT group. Grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 23 (61%) of SBRT patients, and 15 (40%) of SOC patients (P = .13).
 

Hoped-for results, with a few caveats

Approached for comment on the new findings, Clifford Robinson, MD, professor of radiation oncology, chief of SBRT service, and director of clinical trials and informatics at Washington University, St. Louis, said the results tie in with previous findings.

There are multiple published or presented prospective randomized phase 2 and 3 trials in various disease sites that have explored the role of local therapy, including SBRT, for patients who present with oligometastatic disease.

“These studies have nearly uniformly shown improvements in progression-free and/or overall survival with the inclusion of local therapy,” he told this news organization. Dr. Robinson was not involved with the study.

He explained that relatively few patients present with oligometastatic disease. However, many patients present with more advanced disease, but after an initial course of systemic therapy, develop oligoprogression.

“There is tremendous appeal to using local therapy at the time of oligoprogression in lieu of switching systemic therapy,” said Dr. Robinson. “It allows patients to stay on systemic therapy that is otherwise effective for the remainder of their disease.”

First-line systemic therapies are the most effective and the most tolerable, he continued, and switching systemic therapy introduces the potential for more toxicity and less efficacy. Therefore, it has become increasingly popular to offer SBRT to one or a few sites of oligoprogressive disease based on the results of oligometastatic disease.

“However, there is no established prospective data to guide this practice,” he said. “This trial is the first to examine this carefully in lung and breast cancer patients, and this trial shows what we hoped to see – that use of SBRT after oligoprogression results in improved progression-free survival as compared with standard of care alone. And this was accomplished with limited toxicity.”

There are a few caveats, though, he pointed out. “Progression-free survival is defined as time to first progression or death,” he said. “Since we don’t know what the overall survival is in this abstract, it’s entirely possible that patients live for the same length of time, but just take longer to progress.”

Another caveat is that this was a planned interim analysis. “Typically, planned interim analyses occur to see if the trial should be stopped or to adjust the study based on results,” he said. “It’s unclear what the investigators will do with this information.”

“But overall, these are very exciting data and lend support to the increasingly common practice of treating oligoprogressive disease,” Dr. Robinson added. “Since most of the serious adverse events of SBRT occur later, longer follow-up is needed, although the median survival of patients may not reach that timepoint.”

“For now, practice should not be altered based on these interim results,” he added.

Dr. Tsai reported acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian and Galera and also receiving research funding from Varian. Dr. Robinson reports stock/ownership in Radialogica, acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Quantitative Radiology Solutions, research funding from Varian and Merck, and owning patents on systems for cardiac arrhythmias and ablation.

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed at progressive lesions in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was beneficial and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), suggest clinical trial results presented this week.

Patients treated with SBRT had a median PFS of 44 weeks, compared with 9 weeks for those who received standard care.

However, no benefit was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer. There was no significant difference in PFS between the two groups (18 weeks with SBRT vs. 19 weeks with standard care).

“In this preplanned interim analysis, we demonstrated the benefit of SBRT to sites of oligoprogression on overall progression-free survival, which was the primary endpoint,” said lead author C. Jillian Tsai, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and director of metastatic disease radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The difference was driven by the substantial response in [this] NSCLC cohort.”

There was no benefit of SBRT seen in the breast cohort, she noted, and most breast patients developed new lesions upon further progression.

Dr. Tsai and colleagues are planning to close the trial early, after the interim analysis established the benefit of SBRT. They are now investigating why SBRT was beneficial in NSCLC but not in breast cancer.

The findings were presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

Dr. Tsai explained that the current standard of care for patients with oligoprogressive metastatic NSCLC is to switch to a different targeted therapy or chemotherapy following progression, but options may be limited. Efficacy for second-line therapy can be poor, with PFS ranging from about 4 months to 10 months for NSCLC, “and after second line, efficacy for third and fourth lines is even poorer,” she said.

Similarly, for breast cancer, PFS ranges from about 9 months to 20 months for estrogen-receptor positive patients. “But for triple negative patients, there really is no standard of care and PFS is poor,” Dr. Tsai said.
 

SBRT superior to standard of care

The authors hypothesized that there is an oligoprogressive state in metastatic cancer, in which disease control can be improved by applying local therapy to progressive lesions only.

The cohort included 102 patients with metastatic NSCLC or breast cancer who had received one or more lines of systemic therapy and had oligoprogressive lesions amenable to SBRT. There was no upper limit of nonprogressive lesions.

Oligoprogression was defined as Response Evaluation or Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors documented progression ≤5 individual lesions.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT to all progressive sites plus palliative standard of care or systemic SOC only. Systemic therapy was per physician’s discretion.

There were 58 patients with NSCLC (30 in the SBRT group) and 44 patients with breast cancer (22 in each group).

Most patients (75%) had more than one site of oligoprogression and 47% had more than 5 total metastatic lesions. About half of patients (54%) had received immunotherapy and the majority of those with NSCLC (86%) did not harbor an actionable driver mutation. About one-third (32%) of the breast cancer cohort were triple negative.

Patients were followed for a median of 45 weeks (58 weeks for living patients), by which time 78 (74%) had experienced further tumor progression and 39 (37%) had died.

Median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 31 weeks for SBRT and 11 weeks for palliative SOC (P = .002).

In multivariable analysis that stratified for factors including age, sex, lines of systemic therapy, and change of systemic therapy, the progression-free survival benefit of SBRT continued to remain substantial in the NSCLC cohort (hazard ratio: 0.38; P = .007).

Adverse events were higher in the SBRT group. Grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 23 (61%) of SBRT patients, and 15 (40%) of SOC patients (P = .13).
 

Hoped-for results, with a few caveats

Approached for comment on the new findings, Clifford Robinson, MD, professor of radiation oncology, chief of SBRT service, and director of clinical trials and informatics at Washington University, St. Louis, said the results tie in with previous findings.

There are multiple published or presented prospective randomized phase 2 and 3 trials in various disease sites that have explored the role of local therapy, including SBRT, for patients who present with oligometastatic disease.

“These studies have nearly uniformly shown improvements in progression-free and/or overall survival with the inclusion of local therapy,” he told this news organization. Dr. Robinson was not involved with the study.

He explained that relatively few patients present with oligometastatic disease. However, many patients present with more advanced disease, but after an initial course of systemic therapy, develop oligoprogression.

“There is tremendous appeal to using local therapy at the time of oligoprogression in lieu of switching systemic therapy,” said Dr. Robinson. “It allows patients to stay on systemic therapy that is otherwise effective for the remainder of their disease.”

First-line systemic therapies are the most effective and the most tolerable, he continued, and switching systemic therapy introduces the potential for more toxicity and less efficacy. Therefore, it has become increasingly popular to offer SBRT to one or a few sites of oligoprogressive disease based on the results of oligometastatic disease.

“However, there is no established prospective data to guide this practice,” he said. “This trial is the first to examine this carefully in lung and breast cancer patients, and this trial shows what we hoped to see – that use of SBRT after oligoprogression results in improved progression-free survival as compared with standard of care alone. And this was accomplished with limited toxicity.”

There are a few caveats, though, he pointed out. “Progression-free survival is defined as time to first progression or death,” he said. “Since we don’t know what the overall survival is in this abstract, it’s entirely possible that patients live for the same length of time, but just take longer to progress.”

Another caveat is that this was a planned interim analysis. “Typically, planned interim analyses occur to see if the trial should be stopped or to adjust the study based on results,” he said. “It’s unclear what the investigators will do with this information.”

“But overall, these are very exciting data and lend support to the increasingly common practice of treating oligoprogressive disease,” Dr. Robinson added. “Since most of the serious adverse events of SBRT occur later, longer follow-up is needed, although the median survival of patients may not reach that timepoint.”

“For now, practice should not be altered based on these interim results,” he added.

Dr. Tsai reported acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian and Galera and also receiving research funding from Varian. Dr. Robinson reports stock/ownership in Radialogica, acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Quantitative Radiology Solutions, research funding from Varian and Merck, and owning patents on systems for cardiac arrhythmias and ablation.

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

The largest-ever breast cancer screening trial in the United States, which is federally funded with costs expected to reach $100 million, is a “waste,” says prominent radiologist Daniel Kopans, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston. Funding for this trial is largely misspent money, it may produce misleading results, and it should be abandoned, he says.

Dr. Kopans has been an outspoken critic of the trial, describing it as a “huge waste of money” in comments made last year. Now he has set out his criticisms of the trial in an essay published in the October issue of Clinical Imaging, which outlines his objections and concerns for the first time in a peer-reviewed journal.

The Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) is comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), also known as 3-D mammography, with the older 2-D technology or full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Dr. Kopans coined the term DBT and formerly held a now-expired patent on the first version of this technology.

“It could be argued that the imaging part of TMIST is a waste of valuable resources,” he writes in the essay.

The “imaging part” of the trial refers to the primary outcome measure and driving purpose of the trial, which is designed to learn which technology is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal “advanced” cancers.

These cancers include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease. These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, TMIST’s principal investigator Etta Pisano, MD, of the American College of Radiology, has said in the past.

However, Dr. Kopans says that this surrogate endpoint is problematic. “TMIST will only investigate whether or not digital breast tomography results in a decline in advanced cancers, ignoring the fact that many women still die from cancers that are not advanced at the time of diagnosis,” he writes.

“Clearly reducing the rate of advanced cancers is not the only way that early detection saves lives. Lives are also saved by finding cancers at a smaller size within stages,” Dr. Kopans writes. He adds that DBT has been proven in observational cohort studies to find more smaller breast cancers than FFDM.

Dr. Kopans’ opinion that TMIST is largely a waste of resources is not shared by the National Cancer Institute. “We feel strongly that TMIST is a critical study,” an NCI spokesperson told this news organization.
 

Study power concerns

Another concern is that TMIST “may be underpowered,” Dr. Kopans writes. That concern arises in part from a recent review of TMIST by an advisory committee (that was prompted by low patient accrual rates), which proposed reducing the size of the trial. Dr. Kopans says this would result in “a reduction of the planned power of the trial.”  

The NCI says that reducing the study size has been discussed but has not yet been implemented. “Any reduction in size would, of course, have appropriate statistical considerations in mind,” according to the NCI spokesperson.

Dr. Kopans’ concern about statistical power extends beyond downsizing the trial. An advanced cancer in TMIST is counted “if it occurs at any time while the participant is on study,” according to the NCI. Dr. Kopans says that is a problem.

“Since DBT cannot have any effect on advanced cancers in the prevalence year (they are already there), data from the first year (prevalence cancers are likely the largest number) will be unusable, and if used will, inappropriately, dilute the results,” he writes.

Dr. Kopans hopes that the investigators address the statistical power issues with the trial because, if not, “its results may be grossly misleading.”
 

American radiology practice

Dr. Kopans praises one aspect of TMIST – the trial’s effort to create a repository of blood and oral swab specimens, along with participant genetic data. The goal, say TMIST investigators, is to individualize or optimize screening strategies by tying molecular data to clinical outcomes in the trial.

However, apart from that one aspect, Dr. Kopans is highly critical of the trial.

It is now too late to compare the two technologies, he suggests, as DBT is already replacing FFDM for breast cancer screening in the U.S.

He notes that 76% of mammography facilities in the United States have 3-D devices (as of April 2021). That percentage has climbed steadily in recent years. “By the time the TMIST study is completed, DBT will, almost certainly, have become the ‘standard of care,’” he asserts, echoing others who have commented on the trial, including some participating physicians.

The money being spent on TMIST “should not be used for looking backwards,” says Dr. Kopans.

The NCI responded to that criticism. “TMIST is looking to clarify the best screening for women based on the science and is not solely about access. We are seeking to determine which technology is better and [are] providing access to the trial across the country in diverse practices and populations,” the NCI said in an email.

In his essay, Dr. Kopans says it is time to stop TMIST and put the money into other pressing breast cancer issues and questions. “... it makes no sense to continue this flawed trial whose results will be obsolete by the time they become available,” he writes.

Dr. Kopans reports consulting with DART Imaging in China, which is developing a digital breast tomosynthesis machine.

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

The largest-ever breast cancer screening trial in the United States, which is federally funded with costs expected to reach $100 million, is a “waste,” says prominent radiologist Daniel Kopans, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston. Funding for this trial is largely misspent money, it may produce misleading results, and it should be abandoned, he says.

Dr. Kopans has been an outspoken critic of the trial, describing it as a “huge waste of money” in comments made last year. Now he has set out his criticisms of the trial in an essay published in the October issue of Clinical Imaging, which outlines his objections and concerns for the first time in a peer-reviewed journal.

The Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) is comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), also known as 3-D mammography, with the older 2-D technology or full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Dr. Kopans coined the term DBT and formerly held a now-expired patent on the first version of this technology.

“It could be argued that the imaging part of TMIST is a waste of valuable resources,” he writes in the essay.

The “imaging part” of the trial refers to the primary outcome measure and driving purpose of the trial, which is designed to learn which technology is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal “advanced” cancers.

These cancers include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease. These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, TMIST’s principal investigator Etta Pisano, MD, of the American College of Radiology, has said in the past.

However, Dr. Kopans says that this surrogate endpoint is problematic. “TMIST will only investigate whether or not digital breast tomography results in a decline in advanced cancers, ignoring the fact that many women still die from cancers that are not advanced at the time of diagnosis,” he writes.

“Clearly reducing the rate of advanced cancers is not the only way that early detection saves lives. Lives are also saved by finding cancers at a smaller size within stages,” Dr. Kopans writes. He adds that DBT has been proven in observational cohort studies to find more smaller breast cancers than FFDM.

Dr. Kopans’ opinion that TMIST is largely a waste of resources is not shared by the National Cancer Institute. “We feel strongly that TMIST is a critical study,” an NCI spokesperson told this news organization.
 

Study power concerns

Another concern is that TMIST “may be underpowered,” Dr. Kopans writes. That concern arises in part from a recent review of TMIST by an advisory committee (that was prompted by low patient accrual rates), which proposed reducing the size of the trial. Dr. Kopans says this would result in “a reduction of the planned power of the trial.”  

The NCI says that reducing the study size has been discussed but has not yet been implemented. “Any reduction in size would, of course, have appropriate statistical considerations in mind,” according to the NCI spokesperson.

Dr. Kopans’ concern about statistical power extends beyond downsizing the trial. An advanced cancer in TMIST is counted “if it occurs at any time while the participant is on study,” according to the NCI. Dr. Kopans says that is a problem.

“Since DBT cannot have any effect on advanced cancers in the prevalence year (they are already there), data from the first year (prevalence cancers are likely the largest number) will be unusable, and if used will, inappropriately, dilute the results,” he writes.

Dr. Kopans hopes that the investigators address the statistical power issues with the trial because, if not, “its results may be grossly misleading.”
 

American radiology practice

Dr. Kopans praises one aspect of TMIST – the trial’s effort to create a repository of blood and oral swab specimens, along with participant genetic data. The goal, say TMIST investigators, is to individualize or optimize screening strategies by tying molecular data to clinical outcomes in the trial.

However, apart from that one aspect, Dr. Kopans is highly critical of the trial.

It is now too late to compare the two technologies, he suggests, as DBT is already replacing FFDM for breast cancer screening in the U.S.

He notes that 76% of mammography facilities in the United States have 3-D devices (as of April 2021). That percentage has climbed steadily in recent years. “By the time the TMIST study is completed, DBT will, almost certainly, have become the ‘standard of care,’” he asserts, echoing others who have commented on the trial, including some participating physicians.

The money being spent on TMIST “should not be used for looking backwards,” says Dr. Kopans.

The NCI responded to that criticism. “TMIST is looking to clarify the best screening for women based on the science and is not solely about access. We are seeking to determine which technology is better and [are] providing access to the trial across the country in diverse practices and populations,” the NCI said in an email.

In his essay, Dr. Kopans says it is time to stop TMIST and put the money into other pressing breast cancer issues and questions. “... it makes no sense to continue this flawed trial whose results will be obsolete by the time they become available,” he writes.

Dr. Kopans reports consulting with DART Imaging in China, which is developing a digital breast tomosynthesis machine.

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

The largest-ever breast cancer screening trial in the United States, which is federally funded with costs expected to reach $100 million, is a “waste,” says prominent radiologist Daniel Kopans, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston. Funding for this trial is largely misspent money, it may produce misleading results, and it should be abandoned, he says.

Dr. Kopans has been an outspoken critic of the trial, describing it as a “huge waste of money” in comments made last year. Now he has set out his criticisms of the trial in an essay published in the October issue of Clinical Imaging, which outlines his objections and concerns for the first time in a peer-reviewed journal.

The Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) is comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), also known as 3-D mammography, with the older 2-D technology or full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Dr. Kopans coined the term DBT and formerly held a now-expired patent on the first version of this technology.

“It could be argued that the imaging part of TMIST is a waste of valuable resources,” he writes in the essay.

The “imaging part” of the trial refers to the primary outcome measure and driving purpose of the trial, which is designed to learn which technology is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal “advanced” cancers.

These cancers include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease. These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, TMIST’s principal investigator Etta Pisano, MD, of the American College of Radiology, has said in the past.

However, Dr. Kopans says that this surrogate endpoint is problematic. “TMIST will only investigate whether or not digital breast tomography results in a decline in advanced cancers, ignoring the fact that many women still die from cancers that are not advanced at the time of diagnosis,” he writes.

“Clearly reducing the rate of advanced cancers is not the only way that early detection saves lives. Lives are also saved by finding cancers at a smaller size within stages,” Dr. Kopans writes. He adds that DBT has been proven in observational cohort studies to find more smaller breast cancers than FFDM.

Dr. Kopans’ opinion that TMIST is largely a waste of resources is not shared by the National Cancer Institute. “We feel strongly that TMIST is a critical study,” an NCI spokesperson told this news organization.
 

Study power concerns

Another concern is that TMIST “may be underpowered,” Dr. Kopans writes. That concern arises in part from a recent review of TMIST by an advisory committee (that was prompted by low patient accrual rates), which proposed reducing the size of the trial. Dr. Kopans says this would result in “a reduction of the planned power of the trial.”  

The NCI says that reducing the study size has been discussed but has not yet been implemented. “Any reduction in size would, of course, have appropriate statistical considerations in mind,” according to the NCI spokesperson.

Dr. Kopans’ concern about statistical power extends beyond downsizing the trial. An advanced cancer in TMIST is counted “if it occurs at any time while the participant is on study,” according to the NCI. Dr. Kopans says that is a problem.

“Since DBT cannot have any effect on advanced cancers in the prevalence year (they are already there), data from the first year (prevalence cancers are likely the largest number) will be unusable, and if used will, inappropriately, dilute the results,” he writes.

Dr. Kopans hopes that the investigators address the statistical power issues with the trial because, if not, “its results may be grossly misleading.”
 

American radiology practice

Dr. Kopans praises one aspect of TMIST – the trial’s effort to create a repository of blood and oral swab specimens, along with participant genetic data. The goal, say TMIST investigators, is to individualize or optimize screening strategies by tying molecular data to clinical outcomes in the trial.

However, apart from that one aspect, Dr. Kopans is highly critical of the trial.

It is now too late to compare the two technologies, he suggests, as DBT is already replacing FFDM for breast cancer screening in the U.S.

He notes that 76% of mammography facilities in the United States have 3-D devices (as of April 2021). That percentage has climbed steadily in recent years. “By the time the TMIST study is completed, DBT will, almost certainly, have become the ‘standard of care,’” he asserts, echoing others who have commented on the trial, including some participating physicians.

The money being spent on TMIST “should not be used for looking backwards,” says Dr. Kopans.

The NCI responded to that criticism. “TMIST is looking to clarify the best screening for women based on the science and is not solely about access. We are seeking to determine which technology is better and [are] providing access to the trial across the country in diverse practices and populations,” the NCI said in an email.

In his essay, Dr. Kopans says it is time to stop TMIST and put the money into other pressing breast cancer issues and questions. “... it makes no sense to continue this flawed trial whose results will be obsolete by the time they become available,” he writes.

Dr. Kopans reports consulting with DART Imaging in China, which is developing a digital breast tomosynthesis machine.

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

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Mary Lou McMaster, MD, has spent her entire career at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) searching for the genetic underpinnings that give rise to Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). 
After searching for decades, she has yet to uncover a "smoking gun," though a few tantalizing clues have emerged along the way. 
"Our questions are pretty basic: Why are some people more susceptible to developing WM, and why does WM sometimes cluster in families?" she explained. It turns out that the answers are not at all simple. 
Dr. McMaster described some of the clues that her team at the Clinical Genetics Branch of the NCI has unearthed in a presentation at the recent International Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia Foundation (IWMF) 2021 Virtual Educational Forum. 
Commenting after the presentation, Steven Treon, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, who is collaborating with Dr. McMaster on this work, said: "From these familial studies, we can learn how familial genomics may give us insights into disease prevention and treatment." 

Identifying affected families  

Work began in 2001 to identify families in which two or more family members had been diagnosed with WM or in which there was one patient with WM and at least one other relative with a related B-cell cancer, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 
For a frame of reference, they enrolled some families with only one member with WM and in which there was no known family history of the disease. 
"Overall, we have learned that familial WM is a rare disease but not nearly as rare as we first thought," Dr. McMaster said. 
For example, in a referral hospital setting, 5% of WM patients will report having a family member with the same disorder, and up to 20% of WM patients report having a family member with a related but different B-cell cancer, she noted. 
NCI researchers also discovered that environmental factors contribute to the development of WM. Notable chemical or occupational exposures include exposures to pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Infections and autoimmune disease are additional factors. 
"This was not a surprise," Dr. McMaster commented regarding the role of occupational exposures. The research community has known for decades that a "lymphoma belt" cuts through the Midwest farming states. 
Focusing on genetic susceptibility, Dr. McMaster and colleagues first tried to identify a rare germline variant that can be passed down to offspring and that might confer high risk for the disease. 
"We used our high-risk families to study these types of changes, although they may be modified by other genes and environmental factors," Dr. McMaster explained. 
Much to their collective disappointment, the research team has been unable to identify any rare germline variant that could account for WM in many families. What they did find were many small changes in genes that are known to be important in B-cell development and function, but all of those would lead to only a small increase in WM risk. 
"What is holding us back is that, so far, we are not seeing the same gene affected in more than one family, so this suggests to us either that this is not the mechanism behind the development of WM in families, or we have an unfortunate situation where each family is going to have a genetic change that is private to that family and which is not found in other families," Dr. McMaster acknowledged. 

Sheer difficulty  

Given the difficulty of determining whether these small genetic changes had any detrimental functional effect in each and every family with a member who had WM, Dr. McMaster and colleagues have now turned their attention to genes that exert only a small effect on disease risk. 
"Here, we focused on specific genes that we knew were important in the function of the immune system," she explained. "We did find a few genes that may contribute to risk, but those have not yet been confirmed by us or others, and we cannot say they are causative without that confirmation," she said. 
The team has gone on to scan the highway of our genetic material so as to isolate genetic "mile markers." They then examine the area around a particular marker that they suspect contains genes that may be involved in WM. 
One study they conducted involved a cohort of 217 patients with WM in which numerous family members had WM and so was enriched with susceptibility genes. A second cohort comprised 312 WM patients in which there were few WM cases among family members. Both of these cohorts were compared with a group of healthy control persons. 
From these genome studies, "we found there are at least two regions of the genome that can contribute to WM susceptibility, the largest effect being on the short arm of chromosome 6, and the other on the long arm of chromosome 14," Dr. McMaster reported. Dr. McMaster feels that there are probably more regions on the genome that also contribute to WM, although they do not yet understand how these regions contribute to susceptibility. 
"It's more evidence that WM likely results from a combination of events rather than one single gene variant," she observed. Dr. McMaster and colleagues are now collaborating with a large consortium of WM researchers to confirm and extend their findings. Plans are underway to analyze data from approximately 1,350 WM patients and more than 20,000 control persons within the next year. 
"Our hope is that we will confirm our original findings and, because we now have a much larger sample, we will be able to discover additional regions of the genome that are contributing to susceptibility," Dr. McMaster said. 
"A single gene is not likely to account for all WM, as we've looked carefully and others have looked too," she commented. 
"So the risk for WM depends on a combination of genes and environmental exposures and possibly lifestyle factors as well, although we still estimate that approximately 25% of the heritability of WM can be attributed to these kinds of genetic changes," Dr. McMaster predicted. 
Dr. McMaster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Treon has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Janssen, Pfizer, PCYC, and BioGene.  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Mary Lou McMaster, MD, has spent her entire career at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) searching for the genetic underpinnings that give rise to Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). 
After searching for decades, she has yet to uncover a "smoking gun," though a few tantalizing clues have emerged along the way. 
"Our questions are pretty basic: Why are some people more susceptible to developing WM, and why does WM sometimes cluster in families?" she explained. It turns out that the answers are not at all simple. 
Dr. McMaster described some of the clues that her team at the Clinical Genetics Branch of the NCI has unearthed in a presentation at the recent International Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia Foundation (IWMF) 2021 Virtual Educational Forum. 
Commenting after the presentation, Steven Treon, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, who is collaborating with Dr. McMaster on this work, said: "From these familial studies, we can learn how familial genomics may give us insights into disease prevention and treatment." 

Identifying affected families  

Work began in 2001 to identify families in which two or more family members had been diagnosed with WM or in which there was one patient with WM and at least one other relative with a related B-cell cancer, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 
For a frame of reference, they enrolled some families with only one member with WM and in which there was no known family history of the disease. 
"Overall, we have learned that familial WM is a rare disease but not nearly as rare as we first thought," Dr. McMaster said. 
For example, in a referral hospital setting, 5% of WM patients will report having a family member with the same disorder, and up to 20% of WM patients report having a family member with a related but different B-cell cancer, she noted. 
NCI researchers also discovered that environmental factors contribute to the development of WM. Notable chemical or occupational exposures include exposures to pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Infections and autoimmune disease are additional factors. 
"This was not a surprise," Dr. McMaster commented regarding the role of occupational exposures. The research community has known for decades that a "lymphoma belt" cuts through the Midwest farming states. 
Focusing on genetic susceptibility, Dr. McMaster and colleagues first tried to identify a rare germline variant that can be passed down to offspring and that might confer high risk for the disease. 
"We used our high-risk families to study these types of changes, although they may be modified by other genes and environmental factors," Dr. McMaster explained. 
Much to their collective disappointment, the research team has been unable to identify any rare germline variant that could account for WM in many families. What they did find were many small changes in genes that are known to be important in B-cell development and function, but all of those would lead to only a small increase in WM risk. 
"What is holding us back is that, so far, we are not seeing the same gene affected in more than one family, so this suggests to us either that this is not the mechanism behind the development of WM in families, or we have an unfortunate situation where each family is going to have a genetic change that is private to that family and which is not found in other families," Dr. McMaster acknowledged. 

Sheer difficulty  

Given the difficulty of determining whether these small genetic changes had any detrimental functional effect in each and every family with a member who had WM, Dr. McMaster and colleagues have now turned their attention to genes that exert only a small effect on disease risk. 
"Here, we focused on specific genes that we knew were important in the function of the immune system," she explained. "We did find a few genes that may contribute to risk, but those have not yet been confirmed by us or others, and we cannot say they are causative without that confirmation," she said. 
The team has gone on to scan the highway of our genetic material so as to isolate genetic "mile markers." They then examine the area around a particular marker that they suspect contains genes that may be involved in WM. 
One study they conducted involved a cohort of 217 patients with WM in which numerous family members had WM and so was enriched with susceptibility genes. A second cohort comprised 312 WM patients in which there were few WM cases among family members. Both of these cohorts were compared with a group of healthy control persons. 
From these genome studies, "we found there are at least two regions of the genome that can contribute to WM susceptibility, the largest effect being on the short arm of chromosome 6, and the other on the long arm of chromosome 14," Dr. McMaster reported. Dr. McMaster feels that there are probably more regions on the genome that also contribute to WM, although they do not yet understand how these regions contribute to susceptibility. 
"It's more evidence that WM likely results from a combination of events rather than one single gene variant," she observed. Dr. McMaster and colleagues are now collaborating with a large consortium of WM researchers to confirm and extend their findings. Plans are underway to analyze data from approximately 1,350 WM patients and more than 20,000 control persons within the next year. 
"Our hope is that we will confirm our original findings and, because we now have a much larger sample, we will be able to discover additional regions of the genome that are contributing to susceptibility," Dr. McMaster said. 
"A single gene is not likely to account for all WM, as we've looked carefully and others have looked too," she commented. 
"So the risk for WM depends on a combination of genes and environmental exposures and possibly lifestyle factors as well, although we still estimate that approximately 25% of the heritability of WM can be attributed to these kinds of genetic changes," Dr. McMaster predicted. 
Dr. McMaster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Treon has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Janssen, Pfizer, PCYC, and BioGene.  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Mary Lou McMaster, MD, has spent her entire career at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) searching for the genetic underpinnings that give rise to Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). 
After searching for decades, she has yet to uncover a "smoking gun," though a few tantalizing clues have emerged along the way. 
"Our questions are pretty basic: Why are some people more susceptible to developing WM, and why does WM sometimes cluster in families?" she explained. It turns out that the answers are not at all simple. 
Dr. McMaster described some of the clues that her team at the Clinical Genetics Branch of the NCI has unearthed in a presentation at the recent International Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia Foundation (IWMF) 2021 Virtual Educational Forum. 
Commenting after the presentation, Steven Treon, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, who is collaborating with Dr. McMaster on this work, said: "From these familial studies, we can learn how familial genomics may give us insights into disease prevention and treatment." 

Identifying affected families  

Work began in 2001 to identify families in which two or more family members had been diagnosed with WM or in which there was one patient with WM and at least one other relative with a related B-cell cancer, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 
For a frame of reference, they enrolled some families with only one member with WM and in which there was no known family history of the disease. 
"Overall, we have learned that familial WM is a rare disease but not nearly as rare as we first thought," Dr. McMaster said. 
For example, in a referral hospital setting, 5% of WM patients will report having a family member with the same disorder, and up to 20% of WM patients report having a family member with a related but different B-cell cancer, she noted. 
NCI researchers also discovered that environmental factors contribute to the development of WM. Notable chemical or occupational exposures include exposures to pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Infections and autoimmune disease are additional factors. 
"This was not a surprise," Dr. McMaster commented regarding the role of occupational exposures. The research community has known for decades that a "lymphoma belt" cuts through the Midwest farming states. 
Focusing on genetic susceptibility, Dr. McMaster and colleagues first tried to identify a rare germline variant that can be passed down to offspring and that might confer high risk for the disease. 
"We used our high-risk families to study these types of changes, although they may be modified by other genes and environmental factors," Dr. McMaster explained. 
Much to their collective disappointment, the research team has been unable to identify any rare germline variant that could account for WM in many families. What they did find were many small changes in genes that are known to be important in B-cell development and function, but all of those would lead to only a small increase in WM risk. 
"What is holding us back is that, so far, we are not seeing the same gene affected in more than one family, so this suggests to us either that this is not the mechanism behind the development of WM in families, or we have an unfortunate situation where each family is going to have a genetic change that is private to that family and which is not found in other families," Dr. McMaster acknowledged. 

Sheer difficulty  

Given the difficulty of determining whether these small genetic changes had any detrimental functional effect in each and every family with a member who had WM, Dr. McMaster and colleagues have now turned their attention to genes that exert only a small effect on disease risk. 
"Here, we focused on specific genes that we knew were important in the function of the immune system," she explained. "We did find a few genes that may contribute to risk, but those have not yet been confirmed by us or others, and we cannot say they are causative without that confirmation," she said. 
The team has gone on to scan the highway of our genetic material so as to isolate genetic "mile markers." They then examine the area around a particular marker that they suspect contains genes that may be involved in WM. 
One study they conducted involved a cohort of 217 patients with WM in which numerous family members had WM and so was enriched with susceptibility genes. A second cohort comprised 312 WM patients in which there were few WM cases among family members. Both of these cohorts were compared with a group of healthy control persons. 
From these genome studies, "we found there are at least two regions of the genome that can contribute to WM susceptibility, the largest effect being on the short arm of chromosome 6, and the other on the long arm of chromosome 14," Dr. McMaster reported. Dr. McMaster feels that there are probably more regions on the genome that also contribute to WM, although they do not yet understand how these regions contribute to susceptibility. 
"It's more evidence that WM likely results from a combination of events rather than one single gene variant," she observed. Dr. McMaster and colleagues are now collaborating with a large consortium of WM researchers to confirm and extend their findings. Plans are underway to analyze data from approximately 1,350 WM patients and more than 20,000 control persons within the next year. 
"Our hope is that we will confirm our original findings and, because we now have a much larger sample, we will be able to discover additional regions of the genome that are contributing to susceptibility," Dr. McMaster said. 
"A single gene is not likely to account for all WM, as we've looked carefully and others have looked too," she commented. 
"So the risk for WM depends on a combination of genes and environmental exposures and possibly lifestyle factors as well, although we still estimate that approximately 25% of the heritability of WM can be attributed to these kinds of genetic changes," Dr. McMaster predicted. 
Dr. McMaster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Treon has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Janssen, Pfizer, PCYC, and BioGene.  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Increased mental health needs, higher acuity from delayed appointments, and added questions and conversations surrounding COVID-19 are forcing primary care offices to rethink priorities in office visits.

Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.

The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.

More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.

Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.

In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.

“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
 

‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’

Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”

The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.

“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.

Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”

She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”

At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
 

Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity

Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.

As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.

“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
 

Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’

Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”

Courtesy Dr. Danielle Loeb

“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”

Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.

COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.

“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.

Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.

To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.

Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.

“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
 

Rethinking workflow

Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.

“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.

“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.

Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.

“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.

Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.

“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.

As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.

That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.

Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.

Increased mental health needs, higher acuity from delayed appointments, and added questions and conversations surrounding COVID-19 are forcing primary care offices to rethink priorities in office visits.

Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.

The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.

More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.

Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.

In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.

“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
 

‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’

Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”

The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.

“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.

Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”

She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”

At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
 

Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity

Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.

As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.

“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
 

Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’

Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”

Courtesy Dr. Danielle Loeb

“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”

Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.

COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.

“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.

Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.

To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.

Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.

“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
 

Rethinking workflow

Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.

“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.

“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.

Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.

“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.

Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.

“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.

As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.

That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.

Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.

Increased mental health needs, higher acuity from delayed appointments, and added questions and conversations surrounding COVID-19 are forcing primary care offices to rethink priorities in office visits.

Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.

The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.

More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.

Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.

In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.

“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
 

‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’

Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”

The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.

“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.

Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”

She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”

At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
 

Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity

Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.

As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.

“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
 

Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’

Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”

Courtesy Dr. Danielle Loeb

“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”

Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.

COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.

“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.

Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.

To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.

Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.

“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
 

Rethinking workflow

Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.

“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.

“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.

Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.

“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.

Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.

“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.

As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.

That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.

Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.

New data from England show the success of the national program for vaccinating girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer.

Among young women who received the HPV vaccine when they were 12-13 years old (before their sexual debut), cervical cancer rates are 87% lower than among previous nonvaccinated generations.

“It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding.”

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, U.K. Health Security Agency, London, commented in a statement.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the U.K. Health Security Agency, agreed, saying that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she added.

The study was published online Nov. 3, 2021, in The Lancet.

Approached for comment on the new study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, noted that the results of the English study are very similar to those of a Swedish study of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. He said that, as an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years, particularly patients with advanced cervical cancer, “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful.

“I can only emphasize the critical importance of all parents to see that their children who are eligible for the vaccine receive it. This is a cancer prevention strategy that is unbelievably, remarkably effective and safe,” Dr. Markman added.
 

National vaccination program

The national HPV vaccination program in England began in 2008. Initially, the bivalent Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 was used. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% to 80% of all cervical cancers in England, the researchers note in their article.

In 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), which is effective against two additional HPV types, HPV 6 and 11. Those strains cause genital warts.

The prevention program originally recommended a three-dose regimen in which both HPV vaccines were used. Currently, two doses are given to girls younger than 15 years. In addition, a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection. The efficacy rate of a single dose is similar to that of three doses, the authors comment.
 

Population-based registry

The new data come from a population-based cancer registry that shows the incidence of cervical cancer and noninvasive cervical carcinoma (CIN3) in England between January 2006 and June 2019.

The study included seven cohorts of women who were aged 20-64 years at the end of 2019. Three of these cohorts composed the vaccinated population.

The team reports that overall, from January 2006 to June 2019, there were 27,946 cases of cervical cancer and 318,058 cases of CIN3.

In the three vaccinated cohorts, there were around 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would be expected in a nonvaccinated population.

The three vaccinated cohorts had been eligible to receive Cervarix when they were aged 12-13 years. A catch-up scheme aimed at 14- to 16-year-olds and 16- to 18-year-olds. Most of these persons were vaccinated through a school vaccination program.

The team analyzed the data for each of these cohorts.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12-13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine; 85% received three shots and were fully vaccinated. Among these persons, the rate of cervical cancer was 87% lower than expected in a nonvaccinated population, and the rate of CIN3 was 97% lower than expected.

For the cohort that was eligible to be vaccinated between the ages of 14 and 16 years, the corresponding reductions were 62% for cervical cancer and 75% for CIN3.

For the cohort eligible for vaccination between the ages of 16 and 18 years (of whom 60% had received at least one dose and 45% were fully vaccinated), the corresponding reduction were 34% for cervical cancer and 39% for CIN3.

The authors acknowledge some limitations with the study, principally that cervical cancer is rare in young women, and these vaccinated populations are still young. The youngest would have been vaccinated at age 12 in 2008 and so would be only 23 years old in 2019, when the follow-up in this current study ended. The authors emphasize that because the vaccinated populations are still young, it is too early to assess the full impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.
 

Editorial commentary

“The relative reductions in cervical cancer, expected as a result of the HPV vaccination program, support the anticipated vaccine effectiveness,” commented two authors of an accompanying editorial, Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania.

“The scale of the HPV vaccination effect reported by this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low-income and middle-income countries where the problem of cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than in those with well established systems of vaccination and screening,” they comment.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept the vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO [World Health Organization].”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Markman is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income of $250 or more from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

New data from England show the success of the national program for vaccinating girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer.

Among young women who received the HPV vaccine when they were 12-13 years old (before their sexual debut), cervical cancer rates are 87% lower than among previous nonvaccinated generations.

“It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding.”

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, U.K. Health Security Agency, London, commented in a statement.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the U.K. Health Security Agency, agreed, saying that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she added.

The study was published online Nov. 3, 2021, in The Lancet.

Approached for comment on the new study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, noted that the results of the English study are very similar to those of a Swedish study of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. He said that, as an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years, particularly patients with advanced cervical cancer, “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful.

“I can only emphasize the critical importance of all parents to see that their children who are eligible for the vaccine receive it. This is a cancer prevention strategy that is unbelievably, remarkably effective and safe,” Dr. Markman added.
 

National vaccination program

The national HPV vaccination program in England began in 2008. Initially, the bivalent Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 was used. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% to 80% of all cervical cancers in England, the researchers note in their article.

In 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), which is effective against two additional HPV types, HPV 6 and 11. Those strains cause genital warts.

The prevention program originally recommended a three-dose regimen in which both HPV vaccines were used. Currently, two doses are given to girls younger than 15 years. In addition, a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection. The efficacy rate of a single dose is similar to that of three doses, the authors comment.
 

Population-based registry

The new data come from a population-based cancer registry that shows the incidence of cervical cancer and noninvasive cervical carcinoma (CIN3) in England between January 2006 and June 2019.

The study included seven cohorts of women who were aged 20-64 years at the end of 2019. Three of these cohorts composed the vaccinated population.

The team reports that overall, from January 2006 to June 2019, there were 27,946 cases of cervical cancer and 318,058 cases of CIN3.

In the three vaccinated cohorts, there were around 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would be expected in a nonvaccinated population.

The three vaccinated cohorts had been eligible to receive Cervarix when they were aged 12-13 years. A catch-up scheme aimed at 14- to 16-year-olds and 16- to 18-year-olds. Most of these persons were vaccinated through a school vaccination program.

The team analyzed the data for each of these cohorts.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12-13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine; 85% received three shots and were fully vaccinated. Among these persons, the rate of cervical cancer was 87% lower than expected in a nonvaccinated population, and the rate of CIN3 was 97% lower than expected.

For the cohort that was eligible to be vaccinated between the ages of 14 and 16 years, the corresponding reductions were 62% for cervical cancer and 75% for CIN3.

For the cohort eligible for vaccination between the ages of 16 and 18 years (of whom 60% had received at least one dose and 45% were fully vaccinated), the corresponding reduction were 34% for cervical cancer and 39% for CIN3.

The authors acknowledge some limitations with the study, principally that cervical cancer is rare in young women, and these vaccinated populations are still young. The youngest would have been vaccinated at age 12 in 2008 and so would be only 23 years old in 2019, when the follow-up in this current study ended. The authors emphasize that because the vaccinated populations are still young, it is too early to assess the full impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.
 

Editorial commentary

“The relative reductions in cervical cancer, expected as a result of the HPV vaccination program, support the anticipated vaccine effectiveness,” commented two authors of an accompanying editorial, Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania.

“The scale of the HPV vaccination effect reported by this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low-income and middle-income countries where the problem of cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than in those with well established systems of vaccination and screening,” they comment.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept the vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO [World Health Organization].”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Markman is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income of $250 or more from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

New data from England show the success of the national program for vaccinating girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer.

Among young women who received the HPV vaccine when they were 12-13 years old (before their sexual debut), cervical cancer rates are 87% lower than among previous nonvaccinated generations.

“It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding.”

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, U.K. Health Security Agency, London, commented in a statement.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the U.K. Health Security Agency, agreed, saying that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she added.

The study was published online Nov. 3, 2021, in The Lancet.

Approached for comment on the new study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, noted that the results of the English study are very similar to those of a Swedish study of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. He said that, as an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years, particularly patients with advanced cervical cancer, “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful.

“I can only emphasize the critical importance of all parents to see that their children who are eligible for the vaccine receive it. This is a cancer prevention strategy that is unbelievably, remarkably effective and safe,” Dr. Markman added.
 

National vaccination program

The national HPV vaccination program in England began in 2008. Initially, the bivalent Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 was used. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% to 80% of all cervical cancers in England, the researchers note in their article.

In 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), which is effective against two additional HPV types, HPV 6 and 11. Those strains cause genital warts.

The prevention program originally recommended a three-dose regimen in which both HPV vaccines were used. Currently, two doses are given to girls younger than 15 years. In addition, a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection. The efficacy rate of a single dose is similar to that of three doses, the authors comment.
 

Population-based registry

The new data come from a population-based cancer registry that shows the incidence of cervical cancer and noninvasive cervical carcinoma (CIN3) in England between January 2006 and June 2019.

The study included seven cohorts of women who were aged 20-64 years at the end of 2019. Three of these cohorts composed the vaccinated population.

The team reports that overall, from January 2006 to June 2019, there were 27,946 cases of cervical cancer and 318,058 cases of CIN3.

In the three vaccinated cohorts, there were around 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would be expected in a nonvaccinated population.

The three vaccinated cohorts had been eligible to receive Cervarix when they were aged 12-13 years. A catch-up scheme aimed at 14- to 16-year-olds and 16- to 18-year-olds. Most of these persons were vaccinated through a school vaccination program.

The team analyzed the data for each of these cohorts.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12-13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine; 85% received three shots and were fully vaccinated. Among these persons, the rate of cervical cancer was 87% lower than expected in a nonvaccinated population, and the rate of CIN3 was 97% lower than expected.

For the cohort that was eligible to be vaccinated between the ages of 14 and 16 years, the corresponding reductions were 62% for cervical cancer and 75% for CIN3.

For the cohort eligible for vaccination between the ages of 16 and 18 years (of whom 60% had received at least one dose and 45% were fully vaccinated), the corresponding reduction were 34% for cervical cancer and 39% for CIN3.

The authors acknowledge some limitations with the study, principally that cervical cancer is rare in young women, and these vaccinated populations are still young. The youngest would have been vaccinated at age 12 in 2008 and so would be only 23 years old in 2019, when the follow-up in this current study ended. The authors emphasize that because the vaccinated populations are still young, it is too early to assess the full impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.
 

Editorial commentary

“The relative reductions in cervical cancer, expected as a result of the HPV vaccination program, support the anticipated vaccine effectiveness,” commented two authors of an accompanying editorial, Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania.

“The scale of the HPV vaccination effect reported by this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low-income and middle-income countries where the problem of cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than in those with well established systems of vaccination and screening,” they comment.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept the vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO [World Health Organization].”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Markman is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income of $250 or more from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

On Nov. 2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5-11 years. What are some best practices for meeting the challenges of immunizing this younger age group?

This news organization spoke to several pediatric experts to get answers.

More than 6 million children and adolescents (up to age 18 years) in the United States have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Children represent about 17% of all cases, and an estimated 0.1%-2% of infected children end up hospitalized, according to Oct. 28 data from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Physicians and other health care practitioners are gearing up for what could be an influx of patients. “Pediatricians are standing by to talk with families about the vaccine and to administer the vaccine to children as soon as possible,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, president of the AAP, said in a statement.

In this Q&A, this news organization asked for additional advice from Sara “Sally” Goza, MD, a pediatrician in Fayetteville, Georgia, and immediate past president of the AAP; Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and codirector of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, both in Houston; and Danielle M. Zerr, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington, Seattle, and medical director of infection prevention at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
 

Q: How are smaller pediatric practices and solo practitioners going to handle the additional vaccinations?

Dr. Goza: It’s a scheduling challenge with this rollout and all the people who want it and want it right now. They’re going to want it this week.

I’ve actually had some children asking their moms: “When can I get it? When can I get it?” It’s been very interesting – they are chomping at the bit.

If I give the vaccine to a patient this week, in 3 weeks the second dose will be right around Thanksgiving. No one in my office is going to want to be here to give the shot on Thanksgiving, and no patient is going to want to come in on Thanksgiving weekend. So I’m trying to delay those parents – saying, let’s do it next week. That way we’re not messing up a holiday.

Children are going to need two doses, and they won’t be fully protected until 2 weeks after their second dose. So they won’t get full protection for Thanksgiving, but they will have full protection for Christmas.

I know there are a lot of pediatricians who have preordered the vaccine. I know in our office they sent us an email ... to let us know our vaccines are being shipped. So I think a lot of pediatricians are going to have the vaccine.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counsel parents who are fearful or hesitant?

Dr. Hotez: It’s important to emphasize the severity of the 2021 summer Delta epidemic in children. We need to get beyond this false narrative that COVID only produces a mild disease in children. It’s caused thousands of pediatric hospitalizations, not to mention long COVID.

Dr. Zerr: It is key to find out what concerns parents have and then focus on answering their specific questions. It is helpful to emphasize the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and to explain the rigorous processes that the vaccine went through to receive Food and Drug Administration approval.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counter any misinformation/disinformation out there about the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: The most important thing is not to discount what they are saying. Don’t say: “That’s crazy” or “That’s not true.” Don’t roll your eyes and say: “Really, you’re going to believe all that?”

Instead, have a conversation with them about why we think that is not true, or why we know that’s not true. We really have to have that relationship and ask: “Well, what are your concerns?” And then really counter (any misinformation) with facts, with science, and based on your experience.
 

Q: Do the data presented to the FDA and the CDC about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds seem robust to you?

Dr. Zerr: Yes, and data collection will be ongoing.

Dr. Hotez: I’ve only seen what’s publicly available so far, and it seems to support moving forward with emergency use authorization. The only shortfall is the size, roughly 2,200 children, which would not be of sufficient size to detect a rare safety signal.
 

Q: Do previous controversies around pediatric vaccines (for example, the MMR vaccine and autism) give pediatricians some background and experience so they can address any pushback on the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: Pediatricians have been dealing with vaccine hesitancy for a while now, ever since the MMR and autism controversy started. Even before then, there were certain groups of people who didn’t want vaccines.

We’ve really worked hard at helping teach pediatricians how to deal with the misinformation, how to counter it, and how to help parents understand the vaccines are safe and effective – and that they save lives.

That (experience) will help us in some ways. Unfortunately, there is more misinformation out there – there is almost a concerted effort on misinformation. It’s big.

Pediatricians will do everything we can, but we need help countering it. We need the misinformation to quit getting spread on social media. We can talk one on one with patients and families, but if all they are hearing on social media is the misinformation, it’s really hard.
 

Q: Are pediatricians, especially solo practitioners or pediatricians at smaller practices, going to face challenges with multidose vials and not wasting vaccine product?

Dr. Goza: I’m at a small practice. We have 3.5 FTEs (full-time equivalents) of MDs and three FTEs of nurse practitioners. So we’re not that big – about six providers.

You know, it is a challenge. We’re not going to buy the super-duper freezer, and we’re not going to be able to store these vaccines for a long period of time.

So when we order, we need smaller amounts. For the 12- to 18-year-olds, [maximum storage] was 45 days. Now for the 5- to 11-year-olds, we’re going to be able to store the vaccine in the refrigerator for 10 weeks, which gives us more leeway there.

We try to do all of vaccinations on 1 day, so we know how many people are coming in, and we are not going to waste too many doses.

Our Department of Public Health in Georgia has said: “We want these vaccines in the arms of kids, and if you have to waste some doses, don’t worry about it.” But it’s a 10-dose vial. It’s going to be hard for me to open it up for one child. I just don’t like wasting anything like this.

Our main goal is to get this vaccine in to the arms of children whose parents want it.
 

Q: What are some additional sources of information for pediatricians?

Dr. Zerr: There are a lot of great resources on vaccine hesitancy from reputable sources, including these from the CDC and from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:

• Building Confidence With OVID-19 Vaccines
• How to Talk With Parents About COVID-19 Vaccination
• Strategies for Building Confidence in the COVID-19 Vaccines
• Communication Strategies for Building Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines: Addressing Variants and Childhood Vaccinations

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

On Nov. 2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5-11 years. What are some best practices for meeting the challenges of immunizing this younger age group?

This news organization spoke to several pediatric experts to get answers.

More than 6 million children and adolescents (up to age 18 years) in the United States have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Children represent about 17% of all cases, and an estimated 0.1%-2% of infected children end up hospitalized, according to Oct. 28 data from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Physicians and other health care practitioners are gearing up for what could be an influx of patients. “Pediatricians are standing by to talk with families about the vaccine and to administer the vaccine to children as soon as possible,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, president of the AAP, said in a statement.

In this Q&A, this news organization asked for additional advice from Sara “Sally” Goza, MD, a pediatrician in Fayetteville, Georgia, and immediate past president of the AAP; Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and codirector of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, both in Houston; and Danielle M. Zerr, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington, Seattle, and medical director of infection prevention at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
 

Q: How are smaller pediatric practices and solo practitioners going to handle the additional vaccinations?

Dr. Goza: It’s a scheduling challenge with this rollout and all the people who want it and want it right now. They’re going to want it this week.

I’ve actually had some children asking their moms: “When can I get it? When can I get it?” It’s been very interesting – they are chomping at the bit.

If I give the vaccine to a patient this week, in 3 weeks the second dose will be right around Thanksgiving. No one in my office is going to want to be here to give the shot on Thanksgiving, and no patient is going to want to come in on Thanksgiving weekend. So I’m trying to delay those parents – saying, let’s do it next week. That way we’re not messing up a holiday.

Children are going to need two doses, and they won’t be fully protected until 2 weeks after their second dose. So they won’t get full protection for Thanksgiving, but they will have full protection for Christmas.

I know there are a lot of pediatricians who have preordered the vaccine. I know in our office they sent us an email ... to let us know our vaccines are being shipped. So I think a lot of pediatricians are going to have the vaccine.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counsel parents who are fearful or hesitant?

Dr. Hotez: It’s important to emphasize the severity of the 2021 summer Delta epidemic in children. We need to get beyond this false narrative that COVID only produces a mild disease in children. It’s caused thousands of pediatric hospitalizations, not to mention long COVID.

Dr. Zerr: It is key to find out what concerns parents have and then focus on answering their specific questions. It is helpful to emphasize the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and to explain the rigorous processes that the vaccine went through to receive Food and Drug Administration approval.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counter any misinformation/disinformation out there about the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: The most important thing is not to discount what they are saying. Don’t say: “That’s crazy” or “That’s not true.” Don’t roll your eyes and say: “Really, you’re going to believe all that?”

Instead, have a conversation with them about why we think that is not true, or why we know that’s not true. We really have to have that relationship and ask: “Well, what are your concerns?” And then really counter (any misinformation) with facts, with science, and based on your experience.
 

Q: Do the data presented to the FDA and the CDC about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds seem robust to you?

Dr. Zerr: Yes, and data collection will be ongoing.

Dr. Hotez: I’ve only seen what’s publicly available so far, and it seems to support moving forward with emergency use authorization. The only shortfall is the size, roughly 2,200 children, which would not be of sufficient size to detect a rare safety signal.
 

Q: Do previous controversies around pediatric vaccines (for example, the MMR vaccine and autism) give pediatricians some background and experience so they can address any pushback on the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: Pediatricians have been dealing with vaccine hesitancy for a while now, ever since the MMR and autism controversy started. Even before then, there were certain groups of people who didn’t want vaccines.

We’ve really worked hard at helping teach pediatricians how to deal with the misinformation, how to counter it, and how to help parents understand the vaccines are safe and effective – and that they save lives.

That (experience) will help us in some ways. Unfortunately, there is more misinformation out there – there is almost a concerted effort on misinformation. It’s big.

Pediatricians will do everything we can, but we need help countering it. We need the misinformation to quit getting spread on social media. We can talk one on one with patients and families, but if all they are hearing on social media is the misinformation, it’s really hard.
 

Q: Are pediatricians, especially solo practitioners or pediatricians at smaller practices, going to face challenges with multidose vials and not wasting vaccine product?

Dr. Goza: I’m at a small practice. We have 3.5 FTEs (full-time equivalents) of MDs and three FTEs of nurse practitioners. So we’re not that big – about six providers.

You know, it is a challenge. We’re not going to buy the super-duper freezer, and we’re not going to be able to store these vaccines for a long period of time.

So when we order, we need smaller amounts. For the 12- to 18-year-olds, [maximum storage] was 45 days. Now for the 5- to 11-year-olds, we’re going to be able to store the vaccine in the refrigerator for 10 weeks, which gives us more leeway there.

We try to do all of vaccinations on 1 day, so we know how many people are coming in, and we are not going to waste too many doses.

Our Department of Public Health in Georgia has said: “We want these vaccines in the arms of kids, and if you have to waste some doses, don’t worry about it.” But it’s a 10-dose vial. It’s going to be hard for me to open it up for one child. I just don’t like wasting anything like this.

Our main goal is to get this vaccine in to the arms of children whose parents want it.
 

Q: What are some additional sources of information for pediatricians?

Dr. Zerr: There are a lot of great resources on vaccine hesitancy from reputable sources, including these from the CDC and from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:

• Building Confidence With OVID-19 Vaccines
• How to Talk With Parents About COVID-19 Vaccination
• Strategies for Building Confidence in the COVID-19 Vaccines
• Communication Strategies for Building Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines: Addressing Variants and Childhood Vaccinations

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

On Nov. 2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5-11 years. What are some best practices for meeting the challenges of immunizing this younger age group?

This news organization spoke to several pediatric experts to get answers.

More than 6 million children and adolescents (up to age 18 years) in the United States have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Children represent about 17% of all cases, and an estimated 0.1%-2% of infected children end up hospitalized, according to Oct. 28 data from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Physicians and other health care practitioners are gearing up for what could be an influx of patients. “Pediatricians are standing by to talk with families about the vaccine and to administer the vaccine to children as soon as possible,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, president of the AAP, said in a statement.

In this Q&A, this news organization asked for additional advice from Sara “Sally” Goza, MD, a pediatrician in Fayetteville, Georgia, and immediate past president of the AAP; Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and codirector of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, both in Houston; and Danielle M. Zerr, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington, Seattle, and medical director of infection prevention at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
 

Q: How are smaller pediatric practices and solo practitioners going to handle the additional vaccinations?

Dr. Goza: It’s a scheduling challenge with this rollout and all the people who want it and want it right now. They’re going to want it this week.

I’ve actually had some children asking their moms: “When can I get it? When can I get it?” It’s been very interesting – they are chomping at the bit.

If I give the vaccine to a patient this week, in 3 weeks the second dose will be right around Thanksgiving. No one in my office is going to want to be here to give the shot on Thanksgiving, and no patient is going to want to come in on Thanksgiving weekend. So I’m trying to delay those parents – saying, let’s do it next week. That way we’re not messing up a holiday.

Children are going to need two doses, and they won’t be fully protected until 2 weeks after their second dose. So they won’t get full protection for Thanksgiving, but they will have full protection for Christmas.

I know there are a lot of pediatricians who have preordered the vaccine. I know in our office they sent us an email ... to let us know our vaccines are being shipped. So I think a lot of pediatricians are going to have the vaccine.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counsel parents who are fearful or hesitant?

Dr. Hotez: It’s important to emphasize the severity of the 2021 summer Delta epidemic in children. We need to get beyond this false narrative that COVID only produces a mild disease in children. It’s caused thousands of pediatric hospitalizations, not to mention long COVID.

Dr. Zerr: It is key to find out what concerns parents have and then focus on answering their specific questions. It is helpful to emphasize the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and to explain the rigorous processes that the vaccine went through to receive Food and Drug Administration approval.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counter any misinformation/disinformation out there about the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: The most important thing is not to discount what they are saying. Don’t say: “That’s crazy” or “That’s not true.” Don’t roll your eyes and say: “Really, you’re going to believe all that?”

Instead, have a conversation with them about why we think that is not true, or why we know that’s not true. We really have to have that relationship and ask: “Well, what are your concerns?” And then really counter (any misinformation) with facts, with science, and based on your experience.
 

Q: Do the data presented to the FDA and the CDC about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds seem robust to you?

Dr. Zerr: Yes, and data collection will be ongoing.

Dr. Hotez: I’ve only seen what’s publicly available so far, and it seems to support moving forward with emergency use authorization. The only shortfall is the size, roughly 2,200 children, which would not be of sufficient size to detect a rare safety signal.
 

Q: Do previous controversies around pediatric vaccines (for example, the MMR vaccine and autism) give pediatricians some background and experience so they can address any pushback on the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: Pediatricians have been dealing with vaccine hesitancy for a while now, ever since the MMR and autism controversy started. Even before then, there were certain groups of people who didn’t want vaccines.

We’ve really worked hard at helping teach pediatricians how to deal with the misinformation, how to counter it, and how to help parents understand the vaccines are safe and effective – and that they save lives.

That (experience) will help us in some ways. Unfortunately, there is more misinformation out there – there is almost a concerted effort on misinformation. It’s big.

Pediatricians will do everything we can, but we need help countering it. We need the misinformation to quit getting spread on social media. We can talk one on one with patients and families, but if all they are hearing on social media is the misinformation, it’s really hard.
 

Q: Are pediatricians, especially solo practitioners or pediatricians at smaller practices, going to face challenges with multidose vials and not wasting vaccine product?

Dr. Goza: I’m at a small practice. We have 3.5 FTEs (full-time equivalents) of MDs and three FTEs of nurse practitioners. So we’re not that big – about six providers.

You know, it is a challenge. We’re not going to buy the super-duper freezer, and we’re not going to be able to store these vaccines for a long period of time.

So when we order, we need smaller amounts. For the 12- to 18-year-olds, [maximum storage] was 45 days. Now for the 5- to 11-year-olds, we’re going to be able to store the vaccine in the refrigerator for 10 weeks, which gives us more leeway there.

We try to do all of vaccinations on 1 day, so we know how many people are coming in, and we are not going to waste too many doses.

Our Department of Public Health in Georgia has said: “We want these vaccines in the arms of kids, and if you have to waste some doses, don’t worry about it.” But it’s a 10-dose vial. It’s going to be hard for me to open it up for one child. I just don’t like wasting anything like this.

Our main goal is to get this vaccine in to the arms of children whose parents want it.
 

Q: What are some additional sources of information for pediatricians?

Dr. Zerr: There are a lot of great resources on vaccine hesitancy from reputable sources, including these from the CDC and from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:

• Building Confidence With OVID-19 Vaccines
• How to Talk With Parents About COVID-19 Vaccination
• Strategies for Building Confidence in the COVID-19 Vaccines
• Communication Strategies for Building Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines: Addressing Variants and Childhood Vaccinations

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

Most children with simple febrile seizures (SFSs) can be safely managed without lumbar puncture or other diagnostic tests without risking delayed diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, new data gathered from a 15-year span suggest.

Vidya R. Raghavan, MD, with the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, published their findings in Pediatrics.

In 2011, researchers published the American Academy of Pediatrics simple febrile seizure guideline, which recommends limiting lumbar puncture to non–low-risk patients. The guidelines also specified that neuroimaging and hematologic testing are not routinely recommended.

Dr. Raghavan and coauthors studied evaluation and management trends of the patients before and after the guidelines. They identified 142,121 children diagnosed with SFS who presented to 1 of 49 pediatric tertiary EDs and met other study criteria. Changes in management of SFS had started years before the guideline and positive effects continued after the guideline publication.

Researchers found a significant 95% decline in rates of lumbar puncture between 2005 and 2019 from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 10.8%-12.4%) of children in 2005 to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%; P < .001) in 2019. The most significant declines were among infants 6 months to 1 year.

“We found similar declines in rates of diagnostic laboratory and radiologic testing, intravenous antibiotic administration, hospitalization, and costs,” the authors wrote.

“Importantly,” they wrote, “the decrease in testing was not associated with a concurrent increase in delayed diagnoses of bacterial meningitis.”

The number of hospital admissions and total costs also dropped significantly over the 15-year span of the study. After adjusting for inflation, the authors wrote, costs dropped from an average $1,523 in 2005 to $605 (P < .001) in 2019.

Among first-time presentations for SFSs, 19.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-20.2%) resulted in admission in 2005. That rate dropped to 5.2% (95% CI, 4.8%-5.6%) in 2019 (P < .001), although the authors noted that trend largely plateaued after the guideline was published.

“Our findings are consistent with smaller studies published before 2011 in which researchers found declining rates of LP [lumbar puncture] in children presenting to the ED with their first SFS,” the authors wrote.

Mercedes Blackstone, MD, an emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that the paper offers reassurance for changed practice over the last decade.

She said there was substantial relief in pediatrics when the 2011 guidelines recognized formally that protocols were outdated, especially as bacterial meningitis had become increasingly rare with widespread use of pneumococcal and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines. Practitioners had already started to limit the spinal taps on their own.

“We were not really complying with the prior recommendation to do a spinal tap in all those children because it often felt like doing a pretty invasive procedure with a very low yield in what was often a very well child in front of you,” she said.

In 2007, the authors noted, a few years before the guidelines, rates of bacterial meningitis had decreased to 7 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 23 months and 0.56 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 10 years.

However, Dr. Blackstone said, there was still a worry among some practitioners that there could be missed cases of bacterial meningitis.

“It’s very helpful to see that in all those years, the guidelines have been very validated and there were really no missed cases,” said Dr. Blackstone, author of CHOP’s febrile seizures clinical pathway.

It was good to see the number of CT scans drop as well, she said. Dr. Raghavan’s team found they decreased from 10.6% to 1.6%; P < .001, over the study period.

“Earlier work had shown that there was still a fair amount of head CTs happening and that’s radiation to the young brain,” Dr. Blackstone noted. “This is great news.”

Dr. Blackstone said it was great to see so many children from so many children’s hospitals included in the study.

The paper confirmed that “we’ve reduced a lot of unnecessary testing, saved a lot of cost, and had no increased risk to the patients,” she said.

Dr. Blackstone pointed out that the authors include a limitation that many children are seen in nonpediatric centers in community adult ED and she said those settings tend to have more testing.

“Hopefully, these guidelines have penetrated into the whole community,” she said. “With this paper they should feel reassured that they can spare children some of these tests and procedures.”

Dr. Raghavan and Dr. Blackstone declared no relevant financial relationships.

Most children with simple febrile seizures (SFSs) can be safely managed without lumbar puncture or other diagnostic tests without risking delayed diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, new data gathered from a 15-year span suggest.

Vidya R. Raghavan, MD, with the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, published their findings in Pediatrics.

In 2011, researchers published the American Academy of Pediatrics simple febrile seizure guideline, which recommends limiting lumbar puncture to non–low-risk patients. The guidelines also specified that neuroimaging and hematologic testing are not routinely recommended.

Dr. Raghavan and coauthors studied evaluation and management trends of the patients before and after the guidelines. They identified 142,121 children diagnosed with SFS who presented to 1 of 49 pediatric tertiary EDs and met other study criteria. Changes in management of SFS had started years before the guideline and positive effects continued after the guideline publication.

Researchers found a significant 95% decline in rates of lumbar puncture between 2005 and 2019 from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 10.8%-12.4%) of children in 2005 to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%; P < .001) in 2019. The most significant declines were among infants 6 months to 1 year.

“We found similar declines in rates of diagnostic laboratory and radiologic testing, intravenous antibiotic administration, hospitalization, and costs,” the authors wrote.

“Importantly,” they wrote, “the decrease in testing was not associated with a concurrent increase in delayed diagnoses of bacterial meningitis.”

The number of hospital admissions and total costs also dropped significantly over the 15-year span of the study. After adjusting for inflation, the authors wrote, costs dropped from an average $1,523 in 2005 to $605 (P < .001) in 2019.

Among first-time presentations for SFSs, 19.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-20.2%) resulted in admission in 2005. That rate dropped to 5.2% (95% CI, 4.8%-5.6%) in 2019 (P < .001), although the authors noted that trend largely plateaued after the guideline was published.

“Our findings are consistent with smaller studies published before 2011 in which researchers found declining rates of LP [lumbar puncture] in children presenting to the ED with their first SFS,” the authors wrote.

Mercedes Blackstone, MD, an emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that the paper offers reassurance for changed practice over the last decade.

She said there was substantial relief in pediatrics when the 2011 guidelines recognized formally that protocols were outdated, especially as bacterial meningitis had become increasingly rare with widespread use of pneumococcal and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines. Practitioners had already started to limit the spinal taps on their own.

“We were not really complying with the prior recommendation to do a spinal tap in all those children because it often felt like doing a pretty invasive procedure with a very low yield in what was often a very well child in front of you,” she said.

In 2007, the authors noted, a few years before the guidelines, rates of bacterial meningitis had decreased to 7 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 23 months and 0.56 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 10 years.

However, Dr. Blackstone said, there was still a worry among some practitioners that there could be missed cases of bacterial meningitis.

“It’s very helpful to see that in all those years, the guidelines have been very validated and there were really no missed cases,” said Dr. Blackstone, author of CHOP’s febrile seizures clinical pathway.

It was good to see the number of CT scans drop as well, she said. Dr. Raghavan’s team found they decreased from 10.6% to 1.6%; P < .001, over the study period.

“Earlier work had shown that there was still a fair amount of head CTs happening and that’s radiation to the young brain,” Dr. Blackstone noted. “This is great news.”

Dr. Blackstone said it was great to see so many children from so many children’s hospitals included in the study.

The paper confirmed that “we’ve reduced a lot of unnecessary testing, saved a lot of cost, and had no increased risk to the patients,” she said.

Dr. Blackstone pointed out that the authors include a limitation that many children are seen in nonpediatric centers in community adult ED and she said those settings tend to have more testing.

“Hopefully, these guidelines have penetrated into the whole community,” she said. “With this paper they should feel reassured that they can spare children some of these tests and procedures.”

Dr. Raghavan and Dr. Blackstone declared no relevant financial relationships.

Most children with simple febrile seizures (SFSs) can be safely managed without lumbar puncture or other diagnostic tests without risking delayed diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, new data gathered from a 15-year span suggest.

Vidya R. Raghavan, MD, with the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, published their findings in Pediatrics.

In 2011, researchers published the American Academy of Pediatrics simple febrile seizure guideline, which recommends limiting lumbar puncture to non–low-risk patients. The guidelines also specified that neuroimaging and hematologic testing are not routinely recommended.

Dr. Raghavan and coauthors studied evaluation and management trends of the patients before and after the guidelines. They identified 142,121 children diagnosed with SFS who presented to 1 of 49 pediatric tertiary EDs and met other study criteria. Changes in management of SFS had started years before the guideline and positive effects continued after the guideline publication.

Researchers found a significant 95% decline in rates of lumbar puncture between 2005 and 2019 from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 10.8%-12.4%) of children in 2005 to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%; P < .001) in 2019. The most significant declines were among infants 6 months to 1 year.

“We found similar declines in rates of diagnostic laboratory and radiologic testing, intravenous antibiotic administration, hospitalization, and costs,” the authors wrote.

“Importantly,” they wrote, “the decrease in testing was not associated with a concurrent increase in delayed diagnoses of bacterial meningitis.”

The number of hospital admissions and total costs also dropped significantly over the 15-year span of the study. After adjusting for inflation, the authors wrote, costs dropped from an average $1,523 in 2005 to $605 (P < .001) in 2019.

Among first-time presentations for SFSs, 19.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-20.2%) resulted in admission in 2005. That rate dropped to 5.2% (95% CI, 4.8%-5.6%) in 2019 (P < .001), although the authors noted that trend largely plateaued after the guideline was published.

“Our findings are consistent with smaller studies published before 2011 in which researchers found declining rates of LP [lumbar puncture] in children presenting to the ED with their first SFS,” the authors wrote.

Mercedes Blackstone, MD, an emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that the paper offers reassurance for changed practice over the last decade.

She said there was substantial relief in pediatrics when the 2011 guidelines recognized formally that protocols were outdated, especially as bacterial meningitis had become increasingly rare with widespread use of pneumococcal and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines. Practitioners had already started to limit the spinal taps on their own.

“We were not really complying with the prior recommendation to do a spinal tap in all those children because it often felt like doing a pretty invasive procedure with a very low yield in what was often a very well child in front of you,” she said.

In 2007, the authors noted, a few years before the guidelines, rates of bacterial meningitis had decreased to 7 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 23 months and 0.56 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 10 years.

However, Dr. Blackstone said, there was still a worry among some practitioners that there could be missed cases of bacterial meningitis.

“It’s very helpful to see that in all those years, the guidelines have been very validated and there were really no missed cases,” said Dr. Blackstone, author of CHOP’s febrile seizures clinical pathway.

It was good to see the number of CT scans drop as well, she said. Dr. Raghavan’s team found they decreased from 10.6% to 1.6%; P < .001, over the study period.

“Earlier work had shown that there was still a fair amount of head CTs happening and that’s radiation to the young brain,” Dr. Blackstone noted. “This is great news.”

Dr. Blackstone said it was great to see so many children from so many children’s hospitals included in the study.

The paper confirmed that “we’ve reduced a lot of unnecessary testing, saved a lot of cost, and had no increased risk to the patients,” she said.

Dr. Blackstone pointed out that the authors include a limitation that many children are seen in nonpediatric centers in community adult ED and she said those settings tend to have more testing.

“Hopefully, these guidelines have penetrated into the whole community,” she said. “With this paper they should feel reassured that they can spare children some of these tests and procedures.”

Dr. Raghavan and Dr. Blackstone declared no relevant financial relationships.