Feature

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — British investigators have demonstrated a “potentially curative” neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage germline BRCA 1/2–mutated breast cancer.

In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.

“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.

The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.

Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.

The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.

Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.

Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.

In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.

The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.

However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.

“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.

Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.

No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.

Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.

Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.

First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.

Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”

Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”

However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — British investigators have demonstrated a “potentially curative” neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage germline BRCA 1/2–mutated breast cancer.

In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.

“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.

The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.

Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.

The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.

Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.

Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.

In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.

The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.

However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.

“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.

Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.

No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.

Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.

Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.

First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.

Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”

Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”

However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — British investigators have demonstrated a “potentially curative” neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage germline BRCA 1/2–mutated breast cancer.

In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.

“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.

The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.

Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.

The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.

Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.

Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.

In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.

The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.

However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.

“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.

Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.

No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.

Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.

Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.

First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.

Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”

Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”

However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Girls are catching up with and sometimes surpassing boys in terms of adolescent substance use, warned the authors of a new report detailing trends across several regions between 2018 and 2022. The latest 4-yearly Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, concluded that substance use remains “a crucial public health problem among adolescents” despite overall declines in smoking, alcohol, and cannabis use.

The new report: A focus on adolescent substance use in Europe, central Asia, and Canada, detailed substance use among adolescents aged 11, 13, and 15 years across 44 countries and regions in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada in the 2021-2022 school-based survey.

Principal findings included:

• Cigarette smoking: Lifetime smoking declined between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 13-year-old boys and 15-year-old boys and girls. There was also a small but significant decrease in current smoking among 15-year-old boys.
• Alcohol use: Lifetime use decreased overall in boys between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 15-year-olds. An increase was observed among 11- and 13-year-old girls but not 15-year-old girls. There was a small but significant decrease in the proportion of current drinkers among 15-year-old boys, with no change among 11- and 13-year-old boys. Current alcohol use increased among girls in all age groups.
• Cannabis use: Lifetime use among 15-year-olds decreased slightly from 14% to 12% between 2018 and 2022, while 6% of 15-year-olds reported having used cannabis in the previous 30 days.
• Vaping: In 2022 vapes (e-cigarettes) were more popular among adolescents than conventional tobacco cigarettes.

Traditional Gender Gap Narrowing or Reversing

Report coauthor Judith Brown from the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and a project manager for the Scottish survey, said that “there was an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls” despite the overall decrease in boys’ alcohol use.

She explained: “Substance use has traditionally been more prevalent among boys, and the survey findings confirm a well-established gender difference, with higher prevalence in boys than in girls among 11-year-olds. By the age of 13, however, gender differences diminish or even disappear in many countries and regions.”

“Among 15-year-olds, girls often reported more frequent substance use than boys. While this pattern has been known for cigarette smoking in many countries and regions for about two decades, especially among 15-year-olds, it is a new phenomenon for behaviors related to other substances (such as alcohol consumption and drunkenness) in most countries and regions. Historically, prevalence for these behaviors has been higher among boys than girls.”

The new survey results highlight this gender reversal for several substances, she said. “Cannabis is the only substance for which both lifetime and current use is consistently higher in boys.”
 

Vaping Is an Emerging Public Health Concern

Dr. Brown added that the 2022 survey was the first time that vaping data had been collected from all countries. Although this is against the background of continuing decreases in smoking rates, “researchers suggest the transition to e-cigarettes, as a more popular choice than conventional cigarettes, highlights an urgent need for more targeted interventions to address this emerging public health concern.”

The report authors commented that because young people’s brains are still developing, they are “very sensitive to substances such as nicotine,” making it “easier for them to get hooked.”

Margreet de Looze, PhD, assistant professor of interdisciplinary social science at Utrecht University in Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed with the authors’ concerns. “Vaping is extremely attractive for young people,” she said, “because the taste is more attractive than that of traditional cigarettes.” Until recently, many people were not aware of health hazards attached to vaping. “While more research is needed, vaping may function as a first step toward tobacco use and is hazardous for young people’s health. Therefore, it should be strongly discouraged.”
 

Substance Use Trends May Be Stabilizing or Rising Again

Increased awareness of the harmful effects of alcohol for adolescent development is also one postulated reason for declining adolescent alcohol consumption in both Europe and North America over the past two decades, which Dr. de Looze’s research has explored. Her work has also noted the “growing trend” of young people abstaining from alcohol altogether and some evidence of reductions in adolescent risk behaviors more generally, including early sexual initiation and juvenile crime.

“It may be good to realize that, in fact, the current generation of youth in many respects is healthier and reports less risky health behaviors as compared to previous generations,” she said.

However, “The declining trend in adolescent substance use that took place in many countries since the beginning of the 21st century seems to have stabilized, and moreover, in some countries and subgroups of adolescents, substance use appears to be on the rise again.” She cited particularly an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls between 2018 and 2022. “It appears that, especially for girls, recent trends over time are less favorable as compared with boys.”
 

Multiple Influences on Adolescent Substance Abuse

Peer group influences are known to come to the fore during adolescence, and Dr. de Looze added that the early 21st century saw marked reductions in adolescent face-to-face contacts with their peers due to the rise in digital communications. “Adolescents typically use substances in the presence of peers (and in the absence of adults/parents), as it increases their status in their peer group.” Reduced in person interactions with friends may therefore have contributed to the earlier decline in substance use.

However, her team had found that adolescents who spend much time online with friends often also spend much time with friends offline. “They are what you could call the ‘social’ youth, who just spend much time with peers, be it offline or online,” she said. “More research is needed to disentangle exactly how, what kind, for whom the digital environment may be related to young people’s substance use,” she said.

“We also see that young people actively select their friends. So, if you are curious and a bit of a sensation-seeker yourself, you are more likely to become friends with youth who are just like you, and together, you may be more likely to try out substances.”

Factors underlying adolescent substance use and differences between countries are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, said Carina Ferreira-Borges, PhD, regional adviser for alcohol, illicit drugs, and prison health at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

“Prevention measures definitely play a critical role in reducing substance use,” she said, “but other factors, such as cultural norms and socioeconomic conditions, also significantly impact these patterns.”

“Variations in substance use among countries can be attributed to different levels of implemented polices, public health initiatives, and the extent to which substance use is normalized or stigmatized within each society.”
 

Policy Efforts Must Be Targeted

“To address these disparities effectively, interventions and population-level policies need to be culturally adapted and target the specific environments where substance use is normalized among adolescents. By understanding and modifying the broader context in which young people make choices about substance use, we can better influence their behavior and health outcomes.”

Dr. de Looze cautioned, “In the past two decades, public health efforts in many countries have focused on reducing young people’s engagement in substance use. It is important that these efforts continue, as every year a new generation of youth is born. If public health efforts do not continue to focus on supporting a healthy lifestyle among young people, it should not come as a surprise that rates start or continue to rise again.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Girls are catching up with and sometimes surpassing boys in terms of adolescent substance use, warned the authors of a new report detailing trends across several regions between 2018 and 2022. The latest 4-yearly Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, concluded that substance use remains “a crucial public health problem among adolescents” despite overall declines in smoking, alcohol, and cannabis use.

The new report: A focus on adolescent substance use in Europe, central Asia, and Canada, detailed substance use among adolescents aged 11, 13, and 15 years across 44 countries and regions in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada in the 2021-2022 school-based survey.

Principal findings included:

• Cigarette smoking: Lifetime smoking declined between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 13-year-old boys and 15-year-old boys and girls. There was also a small but significant decrease in current smoking among 15-year-old boys.
• Alcohol use: Lifetime use decreased overall in boys between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 15-year-olds. An increase was observed among 11- and 13-year-old girls but not 15-year-old girls. There was a small but significant decrease in the proportion of current drinkers among 15-year-old boys, with no change among 11- and 13-year-old boys. Current alcohol use increased among girls in all age groups.
• Cannabis use: Lifetime use among 15-year-olds decreased slightly from 14% to 12% between 2018 and 2022, while 6% of 15-year-olds reported having used cannabis in the previous 30 days.
• Vaping: In 2022 vapes (e-cigarettes) were more popular among adolescents than conventional tobacco cigarettes.

Traditional Gender Gap Narrowing or Reversing

Report coauthor Judith Brown from the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and a project manager for the Scottish survey, said that “there was an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls” despite the overall decrease in boys’ alcohol use.

She explained: “Substance use has traditionally been more prevalent among boys, and the survey findings confirm a well-established gender difference, with higher prevalence in boys than in girls among 11-year-olds. By the age of 13, however, gender differences diminish or even disappear in many countries and regions.”

“Among 15-year-olds, girls often reported more frequent substance use than boys. While this pattern has been known for cigarette smoking in many countries and regions for about two decades, especially among 15-year-olds, it is a new phenomenon for behaviors related to other substances (such as alcohol consumption and drunkenness) in most countries and regions. Historically, prevalence for these behaviors has been higher among boys than girls.”

The new survey results highlight this gender reversal for several substances, she said. “Cannabis is the only substance for which both lifetime and current use is consistently higher in boys.”
 

Vaping Is an Emerging Public Health Concern

Dr. Brown added that the 2022 survey was the first time that vaping data had been collected from all countries. Although this is against the background of continuing decreases in smoking rates, “researchers suggest the transition to e-cigarettes, as a more popular choice than conventional cigarettes, highlights an urgent need for more targeted interventions to address this emerging public health concern.”

The report authors commented that because young people’s brains are still developing, they are “very sensitive to substances such as nicotine,” making it “easier for them to get hooked.”

Margreet de Looze, PhD, assistant professor of interdisciplinary social science at Utrecht University in Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed with the authors’ concerns. “Vaping is extremely attractive for young people,” she said, “because the taste is more attractive than that of traditional cigarettes.” Until recently, many people were not aware of health hazards attached to vaping. “While more research is needed, vaping may function as a first step toward tobacco use and is hazardous for young people’s health. Therefore, it should be strongly discouraged.”
 

Substance Use Trends May Be Stabilizing or Rising Again

Increased awareness of the harmful effects of alcohol for adolescent development is also one postulated reason for declining adolescent alcohol consumption in both Europe and North America over the past two decades, which Dr. de Looze’s research has explored. Her work has also noted the “growing trend” of young people abstaining from alcohol altogether and some evidence of reductions in adolescent risk behaviors more generally, including early sexual initiation and juvenile crime.

“It may be good to realize that, in fact, the current generation of youth in many respects is healthier and reports less risky health behaviors as compared to previous generations,” she said.

However, “The declining trend in adolescent substance use that took place in many countries since the beginning of the 21st century seems to have stabilized, and moreover, in some countries and subgroups of adolescents, substance use appears to be on the rise again.” She cited particularly an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls between 2018 and 2022. “It appears that, especially for girls, recent trends over time are less favorable as compared with boys.”
 

Multiple Influences on Adolescent Substance Abuse

Peer group influences are known to come to the fore during adolescence, and Dr. de Looze added that the early 21st century saw marked reductions in adolescent face-to-face contacts with their peers due to the rise in digital communications. “Adolescents typically use substances in the presence of peers (and in the absence of adults/parents), as it increases their status in their peer group.” Reduced in person interactions with friends may therefore have contributed to the earlier decline in substance use.

However, her team had found that adolescents who spend much time online with friends often also spend much time with friends offline. “They are what you could call the ‘social’ youth, who just spend much time with peers, be it offline or online,” she said. “More research is needed to disentangle exactly how, what kind, for whom the digital environment may be related to young people’s substance use,” she said.

“We also see that young people actively select their friends. So, if you are curious and a bit of a sensation-seeker yourself, you are more likely to become friends with youth who are just like you, and together, you may be more likely to try out substances.”

Factors underlying adolescent substance use and differences between countries are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, said Carina Ferreira-Borges, PhD, regional adviser for alcohol, illicit drugs, and prison health at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

“Prevention measures definitely play a critical role in reducing substance use,” she said, “but other factors, such as cultural norms and socioeconomic conditions, also significantly impact these patterns.”

“Variations in substance use among countries can be attributed to different levels of implemented polices, public health initiatives, and the extent to which substance use is normalized or stigmatized within each society.”
 

Policy Efforts Must Be Targeted

“To address these disparities effectively, interventions and population-level policies need to be culturally adapted and target the specific environments where substance use is normalized among adolescents. By understanding and modifying the broader context in which young people make choices about substance use, we can better influence their behavior and health outcomes.”

Dr. de Looze cautioned, “In the past two decades, public health efforts in many countries have focused on reducing young people’s engagement in substance use. It is important that these efforts continue, as every year a new generation of youth is born. If public health efforts do not continue to focus on supporting a healthy lifestyle among young people, it should not come as a surprise that rates start or continue to rise again.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Girls are catching up with and sometimes surpassing boys in terms of adolescent substance use, warned the authors of a new report detailing trends across several regions between 2018 and 2022. The latest 4-yearly Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, concluded that substance use remains “a crucial public health problem among adolescents” despite overall declines in smoking, alcohol, and cannabis use.

The new report: A focus on adolescent substance use in Europe, central Asia, and Canada, detailed substance use among adolescents aged 11, 13, and 15 years across 44 countries and regions in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada in the 2021-2022 school-based survey.

Principal findings included:

• Cigarette smoking: Lifetime smoking declined between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 13-year-old boys and 15-year-old boys and girls. There was also a small but significant decrease in current smoking among 15-year-old boys.
• Alcohol use: Lifetime use decreased overall in boys between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 15-year-olds. An increase was observed among 11- and 13-year-old girls but not 15-year-old girls. There was a small but significant decrease in the proportion of current drinkers among 15-year-old boys, with no change among 11- and 13-year-old boys. Current alcohol use increased among girls in all age groups.
• Cannabis use: Lifetime use among 15-year-olds decreased slightly from 14% to 12% between 2018 and 2022, while 6% of 15-year-olds reported having used cannabis in the previous 30 days.
• Vaping: In 2022 vapes (e-cigarettes) were more popular among adolescents than conventional tobacco cigarettes.

Traditional Gender Gap Narrowing or Reversing

Report coauthor Judith Brown from the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and a project manager for the Scottish survey, said that “there was an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls” despite the overall decrease in boys’ alcohol use.

She explained: “Substance use has traditionally been more prevalent among boys, and the survey findings confirm a well-established gender difference, with higher prevalence in boys than in girls among 11-year-olds. By the age of 13, however, gender differences diminish or even disappear in many countries and regions.”

“Among 15-year-olds, girls often reported more frequent substance use than boys. While this pattern has been known for cigarette smoking in many countries and regions for about two decades, especially among 15-year-olds, it is a new phenomenon for behaviors related to other substances (such as alcohol consumption and drunkenness) in most countries and regions. Historically, prevalence for these behaviors has been higher among boys than girls.”

The new survey results highlight this gender reversal for several substances, she said. “Cannabis is the only substance for which both lifetime and current use is consistently higher in boys.”
 

Vaping Is an Emerging Public Health Concern

Dr. Brown added that the 2022 survey was the first time that vaping data had been collected from all countries. Although this is against the background of continuing decreases in smoking rates, “researchers suggest the transition to e-cigarettes, as a more popular choice than conventional cigarettes, highlights an urgent need for more targeted interventions to address this emerging public health concern.”

The report authors commented that because young people’s brains are still developing, they are “very sensitive to substances such as nicotine,” making it “easier for them to get hooked.”

Margreet de Looze, PhD, assistant professor of interdisciplinary social science at Utrecht University in Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed with the authors’ concerns. “Vaping is extremely attractive for young people,” she said, “because the taste is more attractive than that of traditional cigarettes.” Until recently, many people were not aware of health hazards attached to vaping. “While more research is needed, vaping may function as a first step toward tobacco use and is hazardous for young people’s health. Therefore, it should be strongly discouraged.”
 

Substance Use Trends May Be Stabilizing or Rising Again

Increased awareness of the harmful effects of alcohol for adolescent development is also one postulated reason for declining adolescent alcohol consumption in both Europe and North America over the past two decades, which Dr. de Looze’s research has explored. Her work has also noted the “growing trend” of young people abstaining from alcohol altogether and some evidence of reductions in adolescent risk behaviors more generally, including early sexual initiation and juvenile crime.

“It may be good to realize that, in fact, the current generation of youth in many respects is healthier and reports less risky health behaviors as compared to previous generations,” she said.

However, “The declining trend in adolescent substance use that took place in many countries since the beginning of the 21st century seems to have stabilized, and moreover, in some countries and subgroups of adolescents, substance use appears to be on the rise again.” She cited particularly an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls between 2018 and 2022. “It appears that, especially for girls, recent trends over time are less favorable as compared with boys.”
 

Multiple Influences on Adolescent Substance Abuse

Peer group influences are known to come to the fore during adolescence, and Dr. de Looze added that the early 21st century saw marked reductions in adolescent face-to-face contacts with their peers due to the rise in digital communications. “Adolescents typically use substances in the presence of peers (and in the absence of adults/parents), as it increases their status in their peer group.” Reduced in person interactions with friends may therefore have contributed to the earlier decline in substance use.

However, her team had found that adolescents who spend much time online with friends often also spend much time with friends offline. “They are what you could call the ‘social’ youth, who just spend much time with peers, be it offline or online,” she said. “More research is needed to disentangle exactly how, what kind, for whom the digital environment may be related to young people’s substance use,” she said.

“We also see that young people actively select their friends. So, if you are curious and a bit of a sensation-seeker yourself, you are more likely to become friends with youth who are just like you, and together, you may be more likely to try out substances.”

Factors underlying adolescent substance use and differences between countries are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, said Carina Ferreira-Borges, PhD, regional adviser for alcohol, illicit drugs, and prison health at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

“Prevention measures definitely play a critical role in reducing substance use,” she said, “but other factors, such as cultural norms and socioeconomic conditions, also significantly impact these patterns.”

“Variations in substance use among countries can be attributed to different levels of implemented polices, public health initiatives, and the extent to which substance use is normalized or stigmatized within each society.”
 

Policy Efforts Must Be Targeted

“To address these disparities effectively, interventions and population-level policies need to be culturally adapted and target the specific environments where substance use is normalized among adolescents. By understanding and modifying the broader context in which young people make choices about substance use, we can better influence their behavior and health outcomes.”

Dr. de Looze cautioned, “In the past two decades, public health efforts in many countries have focused on reducing young people’s engagement in substance use. It is important that these efforts continue, as every year a new generation of youth is born. If public health efforts do not continue to focus on supporting a healthy lifestyle among young people, it should not come as a surprise that rates start or continue to rise again.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adjuvant therapy with aspirin offers no protection against recurrence or survival benefit in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, the results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial suggest.

These data are more robust than the efficacy signals from previous studies, meaning healthcare providers should not recommend aspirin as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, reported lead author Wendy Y. Chen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

What Data Support Aspirin for Treating Breast Cancer?

“Multiple observational studies have reported a decreased risk of death among survivors of breast cancer who were regular aspirin users,” the investigators wrote in JAMA. “Even more compelling were data from randomized trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease.”

This possible benefit was reported with mechanistic support, as aspirin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties could theoretically control tumor growth, they added. Furthermore, aspirin impacts several cancer pathways currently targeted by agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Brigham & Women's Hospital

What Were The Key Findings From The A011502 Trial?

The A011502 trial enrolled 3,020 patients aged 18-70 years with ERBB2-negative breast cancer who had received standard therapy via routine clinical care. Eligibility required that chemotherapy and local therapy were complete, but ongoing endocrine therapy was allowed.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin 300 mg per day or matching placebo for 5 years. The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival, and the key secondary outcome was overall survival.

After a median follow-up of almost 3 years, at the first interim analysis, the study was suspended early due to statistical futility. By that timepoint, 253 invasive disease-free survival events occurred, of which 141 occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 112 in the placebo group, providing a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63) that was not statistically significant  (P = .06). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Safety profiles were similar across groups.

How Will This Study Change Practice?

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, of Georgetown Lombardi Institute for Cancer and Aging Research, Washington, and colleagues, praised the trial for its comprehensive approach, but they predicted that the negative result could spell friction for health care providers.

“[C]linicians may find it challenging to communicate with their patients about the negative result in the Alliance trial, because prior lay press articles, observational studies, and meta-analyses of cardiovascular trials suggested that aspirin may decrease breast cancer recurrence,” they wrote.

Georgetown University

How Might the Findings From the A011502 Trial Impact Future Research?

Finally, and “most critically,” the editorialists raised concerns about health equity, noting the limited diversity in trial participants and the potential exclusion of subgroups that might benefit from aspirin use, particularly those more likely to experience accelerated biological aging and disparities in cancer risk and outcomes due to systemic racism or adverse social determinants of health.

They concluded by emphasizing the need to consider the intersectionality of aging, cancer, and disparities in designing future trials to advance health equity.

This study was funded by the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The research was also supported in part by Bayer, which provided the study drug. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Seagen, Orum Clinical, and others. The editorialists disclosed relationships with Cantex Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

Adjuvant therapy with aspirin offers no protection against recurrence or survival benefit in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, the results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial suggest.

These data are more robust than the efficacy signals from previous studies, meaning healthcare providers should not recommend aspirin as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, reported lead author Wendy Y. Chen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

What Data Support Aspirin for Treating Breast Cancer?

“Multiple observational studies have reported a decreased risk of death among survivors of breast cancer who were regular aspirin users,” the investigators wrote in JAMA. “Even more compelling were data from randomized trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease.”

This possible benefit was reported with mechanistic support, as aspirin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties could theoretically control tumor growth, they added. Furthermore, aspirin impacts several cancer pathways currently targeted by agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Brigham & Women's Hospital

What Were The Key Findings From The A011502 Trial?

The A011502 trial enrolled 3,020 patients aged 18-70 years with ERBB2-negative breast cancer who had received standard therapy via routine clinical care. Eligibility required that chemotherapy and local therapy were complete, but ongoing endocrine therapy was allowed.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin 300 mg per day or matching placebo for 5 years. The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival, and the key secondary outcome was overall survival.

After a median follow-up of almost 3 years, at the first interim analysis, the study was suspended early due to statistical futility. By that timepoint, 253 invasive disease-free survival events occurred, of which 141 occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 112 in the placebo group, providing a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63) that was not statistically significant  (P = .06). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Safety profiles were similar across groups.

How Will This Study Change Practice?

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, of Georgetown Lombardi Institute for Cancer and Aging Research, Washington, and colleagues, praised the trial for its comprehensive approach, but they predicted that the negative result could spell friction for health care providers.

“[C]linicians may find it challenging to communicate with their patients about the negative result in the Alliance trial, because prior lay press articles, observational studies, and meta-analyses of cardiovascular trials suggested that aspirin may decrease breast cancer recurrence,” they wrote.

Georgetown University

How Might the Findings From the A011502 Trial Impact Future Research?

Finally, and “most critically,” the editorialists raised concerns about health equity, noting the limited diversity in trial participants and the potential exclusion of subgroups that might benefit from aspirin use, particularly those more likely to experience accelerated biological aging and disparities in cancer risk and outcomes due to systemic racism or adverse social determinants of health.

They concluded by emphasizing the need to consider the intersectionality of aging, cancer, and disparities in designing future trials to advance health equity.

This study was funded by the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The research was also supported in part by Bayer, which provided the study drug. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Seagen, Orum Clinical, and others. The editorialists disclosed relationships with Cantex Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

Adjuvant therapy with aspirin offers no protection against recurrence or survival benefit in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, the results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial suggest.

These data are more robust than the efficacy signals from previous studies, meaning healthcare providers should not recommend aspirin as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, reported lead author Wendy Y. Chen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

What Data Support Aspirin for Treating Breast Cancer?

“Multiple observational studies have reported a decreased risk of death among survivors of breast cancer who were regular aspirin users,” the investigators wrote in JAMA. “Even more compelling were data from randomized trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease.”

This possible benefit was reported with mechanistic support, as aspirin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties could theoretically control tumor growth, they added. Furthermore, aspirin impacts several cancer pathways currently targeted by agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Brigham & Women's Hospital

What Were The Key Findings From The A011502 Trial?

The A011502 trial enrolled 3,020 patients aged 18-70 years with ERBB2-negative breast cancer who had received standard therapy via routine clinical care. Eligibility required that chemotherapy and local therapy were complete, but ongoing endocrine therapy was allowed.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin 300 mg per day or matching placebo for 5 years. The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival, and the key secondary outcome was overall survival.

After a median follow-up of almost 3 years, at the first interim analysis, the study was suspended early due to statistical futility. By that timepoint, 253 invasive disease-free survival events occurred, of which 141 occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 112 in the placebo group, providing a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63) that was not statistically significant  (P = .06). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Safety profiles were similar across groups.

How Will This Study Change Practice?

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, of Georgetown Lombardi Institute for Cancer and Aging Research, Washington, and colleagues, praised the trial for its comprehensive approach, but they predicted that the negative result could spell friction for health care providers.

“[C]linicians may find it challenging to communicate with their patients about the negative result in the Alliance trial, because prior lay press articles, observational studies, and meta-analyses of cardiovascular trials suggested that aspirin may decrease breast cancer recurrence,” they wrote.

Georgetown University

How Might the Findings From the A011502 Trial Impact Future Research?

Finally, and “most critically,” the editorialists raised concerns about health equity, noting the limited diversity in trial participants and the potential exclusion of subgroups that might benefit from aspirin use, particularly those more likely to experience accelerated biological aging and disparities in cancer risk and outcomes due to systemic racism or adverse social determinants of health.

They concluded by emphasizing the need to consider the intersectionality of aging, cancer, and disparities in designing future trials to advance health equity.

This study was funded by the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The research was also supported in part by Bayer, which provided the study drug. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Seagen, Orum Clinical, and others. The editorialists disclosed relationships with Cantex Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Companies selling gut microbiome tests directly to consumers offer up a variety of claims to promote their products.

“We analyze the trillions of microbes in your gut microflora and craft a unique formula for your unique gut needs,” one says. “Get actionable dietary, supplement, and lifestyle recommendations from our microbiome experts based on your results, tailored to mom and baby’s biomarkers. ... Any family member like dads or siblings are welcome too,” says another.

The companies assert that they can improve gut health by offering individuals personalized treatments based on their gut microbiome test results. The trouble is, no provider, company, or technology can reliably do that yet.
 

Clinical Implications, Not Applications

The microbiome is the “constellation of microorganisms that call the human body home,” including many strains of bacteria, fungi, and viruses. That constellation comprises some 39 trillion cells.

Although knowledge is increasing on the oral, cutaneous, and vaginal microbiomes, the gut microbiome is arguably the most studied. However, while research is increasingly demonstrating that the gut microbiome has clinical implications, much work needs to be done before reliable applications based on that research are available.

But lack of scientific evidence and validity hasn’t stopped a growing number of companies across the globe from offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome tests, Erik C. von Rosenvinge, MD, AGAF, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“If you go to their websites, even if it’s not stated overtly, these companies at least give the impression that they’re providing actionable, useful information,” he said. “The sites recommend microbiome testing, and often supplements, probiotics, or other products that they sell. And consumers are told they need to be tested again once they start taking any of these products to see if they’re receiving any benefit.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues authored a recent article in Science  arguing that DTC microbiome tests “lack analytical and clinical validity” — and yet regulation of the industry has been “generally ignored.” They identified 31 companies globally, 17 of which are based in the United States, claiming to have products and/or services aimed at changing the intestinal microbiome.
 

Unreliable, Unregulated

The lack of reliability has been shown by experts who have tested the tests.

“People have taken the same stool sample, sent it to multiple companies, and gotten different results back,” Dr. von Rosenvinge said. “People also have taken a stool sample and sent it to the same company under two different names and received two different results. If the test is unreliable at its foundational level, it’s hard to use it in any clinical way.”

Test users’ methods and the companies’ procedures can affect the results, Dina Kao, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, said in an interview.

“So many biases can be introduced at every single step of the way, starting from how the stool sample was collected and how it’s preserved or not being preserved, because that can introduce a lot of noise that would change the analyses. Which primer they’re using to amplify the signals and which bioinformatic pipeline they use are also important,” said Dr. Kao, who presented at the recent Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, organized by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM).

Different investigators and companies use different technologies, so it’s very difficult to compare them and to create a standard, said Mahmoud Ghannoum, PhD, a professor in the dermatology and pathology departments at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and director of the Center for Medical Mycology at University Hospitals in Cleveland.

The complexity of the gut microbiome makes test standardization more difficult than it is when just one organism is involved, Dr. Ghannoum, who chaired the antifungal subcommittee at the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, said in an interview.

“Even though many researchers are focusing on bacteria, we also have fungi and viruses. We need standardization of methods for testing these organisms if we want to have regulations,” said Dr. Ghannoum, a cofounder of BIOHM, a microbiome company that offers nondiagnostic tests and markets a variety of probiotics, prebiotics, and immunity supplements. BIOHM is one of the 31 companies identified by Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues, as noted above.

Dr. Ghannoum believes that taking a systematic approach could facilitate standardization and, ultimately, regulation of the DTC microbiome testing products. He and his colleagues described such an approach by outlining the stages for designing probiotics capable of modulating the microbiome in chronic diseases, using Crohn’s disease as a model. Their strategy involved the following steps:

• Using primary microbiome data to identify, by abundance, the microorganisms underlying dysbiosis.
• Gaining insight into the interactions among the identified pathogens.
• Conducting a correlation analysis to identify potential lead probiotic strains that antagonize these pathogens and discovering metabolites that can interrupt their interactions.
• Creating a prototype formulation for testing.
• Validating the efficacy of the candidate formulation via preclinical in vitro and in vivo testing.
• Conducting clinical testing.

Dr. Ghannoum recommends that companies use a similar process “to provide evidence that what they are doing will be helpful, not only for them but also for the reputation of the whole industry.”
 

Potential Pitfalls

Whether test results from commercial companies are positioned as wellness aids or diagnostic tools, providing advice based on the results “is where the danger can really come in,” Dr. Kao said. “There is still so much we don’t know about which microbial signatures are associated with each condition.”

“Even when we have a solution, like the Crohn’s exclusion diet, a physician doesn’t know enough of the nuances to give advice to a patient,” she said. “That really should be done under the guidance of an expert dietitian. And if a company is selling probiotics, I personally feel that’s not ethical. I’m pretty sure there’s always going to be some kind of conflict of interest.”

Supplements and probiotics are generally safe, but negative consequences can occur, Dr. von Rosenvinge noted.

“We occasionally see people who end up with liver problems as a result of certain supplements, and rarely, probiotics have been associated with infections from those organisms, usually in those with a compromised immune system,” he said.

Other risks include people taking supplements or probiotics when they actually have a medically treatable condition or delays in diagnosis of a potentially serious underlying condition, such as colon cancer, he said. Some patients may stop taking their traditional medication in favor of taking supplements or may experience a drug-supplement interaction if they take both.
 

What to Tell Patients

“Doctors should be advising against this testing for their patients,” gastroenterologist Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “I explain to patients that these tests are not validated and are clinically meaningless data and not worth the money. There is a reason they are not covered by insurance.

“Recommendations to purchase probiotics or supplements manufactured by the testing company to ‘restore a balanced or healthy microbiome’ clearly seem like a scam,” she added. “I believe some of these companies are capitalizing on patients who are desperate for answers to explain chronic symptoms, such as bloating in irritable bowel syndrome.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge said that the message to patients “is that the science isn’t there yet to support using the results of these tests in a meaningful way. We believe the microbiome is very important in health and disease, but the tests themselves in their current state are not as reliable and reproducible as we would like.”

When patients come in with test results, the first question a clinician should ask is what led them to seek out this type of information in the first place, Dr. von Rosenvinge said.

“Our patient focus groups suggested that many have not gotten clear, satisfactory answers from traditional medicine,” he said. “We don’t have a single test that says, yes, you have irritable bowel syndrome, or no, you don’t. We might suggest things that are helpful for some people and are less helpful for others.”

Dr. Kelly said she worries that “there are snake oil salesmen and cons out there who will gladly take your money. These may be smart people, capable of doing very high-level testing, and even producing very detailed and accurate results, but that doesn’t mean we know what to do with them.”

She hopes to see a microbiome-based diagnostic test in the future, particularly if the ability to therapeutically manipulate the gut microbiome in various diseases becomes a reality.
 

Educate Clinicians, Companies

More education is needed on the subject, so we can become “microbial clinicians,” Dr. Kao said.

“The microbiome never came up when I was going through my medical education,” she said. But we, and the next generation of physicians, “need to at least be able to understand the basics.

“Hopefully, one day, we will be in a position where we can have meaningful interpretations of the test results and make some kind of meaningful dietary interventions,” Dr. Kao added.

As for clinicians who are currently ordering these tests and products directly from the DTC companies, Dr. Kao said, “I roll my eyes.”

Dr. Ghannoum reiterated that companies offering microbiome tests and products also need to be educated and encouraged to use systematic approaches to product development and interpretation.

“Companies should be open to calls from clinicians and be ready to explain findings on a report, as well as the basis for any recommendations,” he said.

Dr. von Rosenvinge, Dr. Kao, and Dr. Kelly had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Ghannoum is a cofounder of BIOHM.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Companies selling gut microbiome tests directly to consumers offer up a variety of claims to promote their products.

“We analyze the trillions of microbes in your gut microflora and craft a unique formula for your unique gut needs,” one says. “Get actionable dietary, supplement, and lifestyle recommendations from our microbiome experts based on your results, tailored to mom and baby’s biomarkers. ... Any family member like dads or siblings are welcome too,” says another.

The companies assert that they can improve gut health by offering individuals personalized treatments based on their gut microbiome test results. The trouble is, no provider, company, or technology can reliably do that yet.
 

Clinical Implications, Not Applications

The microbiome is the “constellation of microorganisms that call the human body home,” including many strains of bacteria, fungi, and viruses. That constellation comprises some 39 trillion cells.

Although knowledge is increasing on the oral, cutaneous, and vaginal microbiomes, the gut microbiome is arguably the most studied. However, while research is increasingly demonstrating that the gut microbiome has clinical implications, much work needs to be done before reliable applications based on that research are available.

But lack of scientific evidence and validity hasn’t stopped a growing number of companies across the globe from offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome tests, Erik C. von Rosenvinge, MD, AGAF, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“If you go to their websites, even if it’s not stated overtly, these companies at least give the impression that they’re providing actionable, useful information,” he said. “The sites recommend microbiome testing, and often supplements, probiotics, or other products that they sell. And consumers are told they need to be tested again once they start taking any of these products to see if they’re receiving any benefit.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues authored a recent article in Science  arguing that DTC microbiome tests “lack analytical and clinical validity” — and yet regulation of the industry has been “generally ignored.” They identified 31 companies globally, 17 of which are based in the United States, claiming to have products and/or services aimed at changing the intestinal microbiome.
 

Unreliable, Unregulated

The lack of reliability has been shown by experts who have tested the tests.

“People have taken the same stool sample, sent it to multiple companies, and gotten different results back,” Dr. von Rosenvinge said. “People also have taken a stool sample and sent it to the same company under two different names and received two different results. If the test is unreliable at its foundational level, it’s hard to use it in any clinical way.”

Test users’ methods and the companies’ procedures can affect the results, Dina Kao, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, said in an interview.

“So many biases can be introduced at every single step of the way, starting from how the stool sample was collected and how it’s preserved or not being preserved, because that can introduce a lot of noise that would change the analyses. Which primer they’re using to amplify the signals and which bioinformatic pipeline they use are also important,” said Dr. Kao, who presented at the recent Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, organized by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM).

Different investigators and companies use different technologies, so it’s very difficult to compare them and to create a standard, said Mahmoud Ghannoum, PhD, a professor in the dermatology and pathology departments at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and director of the Center for Medical Mycology at University Hospitals in Cleveland.

The complexity of the gut microbiome makes test standardization more difficult than it is when just one organism is involved, Dr. Ghannoum, who chaired the antifungal subcommittee at the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, said in an interview.

“Even though many researchers are focusing on bacteria, we also have fungi and viruses. We need standardization of methods for testing these organisms if we want to have regulations,” said Dr. Ghannoum, a cofounder of BIOHM, a microbiome company that offers nondiagnostic tests and markets a variety of probiotics, prebiotics, and immunity supplements. BIOHM is one of the 31 companies identified by Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues, as noted above.

Dr. Ghannoum believes that taking a systematic approach could facilitate standardization and, ultimately, regulation of the DTC microbiome testing products. He and his colleagues described such an approach by outlining the stages for designing probiotics capable of modulating the microbiome in chronic diseases, using Crohn’s disease as a model. Their strategy involved the following steps:

• Using primary microbiome data to identify, by abundance, the microorganisms underlying dysbiosis.
• Gaining insight into the interactions among the identified pathogens.
• Conducting a correlation analysis to identify potential lead probiotic strains that antagonize these pathogens and discovering metabolites that can interrupt their interactions.
• Creating a prototype formulation for testing.
• Validating the efficacy of the candidate formulation via preclinical in vitro and in vivo testing.
• Conducting clinical testing.

Dr. Ghannoum recommends that companies use a similar process “to provide evidence that what they are doing will be helpful, not only for them but also for the reputation of the whole industry.”
 

Potential Pitfalls

Whether test results from commercial companies are positioned as wellness aids or diagnostic tools, providing advice based on the results “is where the danger can really come in,” Dr. Kao said. “There is still so much we don’t know about which microbial signatures are associated with each condition.”

“Even when we have a solution, like the Crohn’s exclusion diet, a physician doesn’t know enough of the nuances to give advice to a patient,” she said. “That really should be done under the guidance of an expert dietitian. And if a company is selling probiotics, I personally feel that’s not ethical. I’m pretty sure there’s always going to be some kind of conflict of interest.”

Supplements and probiotics are generally safe, but negative consequences can occur, Dr. von Rosenvinge noted.

“We occasionally see people who end up with liver problems as a result of certain supplements, and rarely, probiotics have been associated with infections from those organisms, usually in those with a compromised immune system,” he said.

Other risks include people taking supplements or probiotics when they actually have a medically treatable condition or delays in diagnosis of a potentially serious underlying condition, such as colon cancer, he said. Some patients may stop taking their traditional medication in favor of taking supplements or may experience a drug-supplement interaction if they take both.
 

What to Tell Patients

“Doctors should be advising against this testing for their patients,” gastroenterologist Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “I explain to patients that these tests are not validated and are clinically meaningless data and not worth the money. There is a reason they are not covered by insurance.

“Recommendations to purchase probiotics or supplements manufactured by the testing company to ‘restore a balanced or healthy microbiome’ clearly seem like a scam,” she added. “I believe some of these companies are capitalizing on patients who are desperate for answers to explain chronic symptoms, such as bloating in irritable bowel syndrome.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge said that the message to patients “is that the science isn’t there yet to support using the results of these tests in a meaningful way. We believe the microbiome is very important in health and disease, but the tests themselves in their current state are not as reliable and reproducible as we would like.”

When patients come in with test results, the first question a clinician should ask is what led them to seek out this type of information in the first place, Dr. von Rosenvinge said.

“Our patient focus groups suggested that many have not gotten clear, satisfactory answers from traditional medicine,” he said. “We don’t have a single test that says, yes, you have irritable bowel syndrome, or no, you don’t. We might suggest things that are helpful for some people and are less helpful for others.”

Dr. Kelly said she worries that “there are snake oil salesmen and cons out there who will gladly take your money. These may be smart people, capable of doing very high-level testing, and even producing very detailed and accurate results, but that doesn’t mean we know what to do with them.”

She hopes to see a microbiome-based diagnostic test in the future, particularly if the ability to therapeutically manipulate the gut microbiome in various diseases becomes a reality.
 

Educate Clinicians, Companies

More education is needed on the subject, so we can become “microbial clinicians,” Dr. Kao said.

“The microbiome never came up when I was going through my medical education,” she said. But we, and the next generation of physicians, “need to at least be able to understand the basics.

“Hopefully, one day, we will be in a position where we can have meaningful interpretations of the test results and make some kind of meaningful dietary interventions,” Dr. Kao added.

As for clinicians who are currently ordering these tests and products directly from the DTC companies, Dr. Kao said, “I roll my eyes.”

Dr. Ghannoum reiterated that companies offering microbiome tests and products also need to be educated and encouraged to use systematic approaches to product development and interpretation.

“Companies should be open to calls from clinicians and be ready to explain findings on a report, as well as the basis for any recommendations,” he said.

Dr. von Rosenvinge, Dr. Kao, and Dr. Kelly had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Ghannoum is a cofounder of BIOHM.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Companies selling gut microbiome tests directly to consumers offer up a variety of claims to promote their products.

“We analyze the trillions of microbes in your gut microflora and craft a unique formula for your unique gut needs,” one says. “Get actionable dietary, supplement, and lifestyle recommendations from our microbiome experts based on your results, tailored to mom and baby’s biomarkers. ... Any family member like dads or siblings are welcome too,” says another.

The companies assert that they can improve gut health by offering individuals personalized treatments based on their gut microbiome test results. The trouble is, no provider, company, or technology can reliably do that yet.
 

Clinical Implications, Not Applications

The microbiome is the “constellation of microorganisms that call the human body home,” including many strains of bacteria, fungi, and viruses. That constellation comprises some 39 trillion cells.

Although knowledge is increasing on the oral, cutaneous, and vaginal microbiomes, the gut microbiome is arguably the most studied. However, while research is increasingly demonstrating that the gut microbiome has clinical implications, much work needs to be done before reliable applications based on that research are available.

But lack of scientific evidence and validity hasn’t stopped a growing number of companies across the globe from offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome tests, Erik C. von Rosenvinge, MD, AGAF, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“If you go to their websites, even if it’s not stated overtly, these companies at least give the impression that they’re providing actionable, useful information,” he said. “The sites recommend microbiome testing, and often supplements, probiotics, or other products that they sell. And consumers are told they need to be tested again once they start taking any of these products to see if they’re receiving any benefit.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues authored a recent article in Science  arguing that DTC microbiome tests “lack analytical and clinical validity” — and yet regulation of the industry has been “generally ignored.” They identified 31 companies globally, 17 of which are based in the United States, claiming to have products and/or services aimed at changing the intestinal microbiome.
 

Unreliable, Unregulated

The lack of reliability has been shown by experts who have tested the tests.

“People have taken the same stool sample, sent it to multiple companies, and gotten different results back,” Dr. von Rosenvinge said. “People also have taken a stool sample and sent it to the same company under two different names and received two different results. If the test is unreliable at its foundational level, it’s hard to use it in any clinical way.”

Test users’ methods and the companies’ procedures can affect the results, Dina Kao, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, said in an interview.

“So many biases can be introduced at every single step of the way, starting from how the stool sample was collected and how it’s preserved or not being preserved, because that can introduce a lot of noise that would change the analyses. Which primer they’re using to amplify the signals and which bioinformatic pipeline they use are also important,” said Dr. Kao, who presented at the recent Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, organized by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM).

Different investigators and companies use different technologies, so it’s very difficult to compare them and to create a standard, said Mahmoud Ghannoum, PhD, a professor in the dermatology and pathology departments at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and director of the Center for Medical Mycology at University Hospitals in Cleveland.

The complexity of the gut microbiome makes test standardization more difficult than it is when just one organism is involved, Dr. Ghannoum, who chaired the antifungal subcommittee at the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, said in an interview.

“Even though many researchers are focusing on bacteria, we also have fungi and viruses. We need standardization of methods for testing these organisms if we want to have regulations,” said Dr. Ghannoum, a cofounder of BIOHM, a microbiome company that offers nondiagnostic tests and markets a variety of probiotics, prebiotics, and immunity supplements. BIOHM is one of the 31 companies identified by Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues, as noted above.

Dr. Ghannoum believes that taking a systematic approach could facilitate standardization and, ultimately, regulation of the DTC microbiome testing products. He and his colleagues described such an approach by outlining the stages for designing probiotics capable of modulating the microbiome in chronic diseases, using Crohn’s disease as a model. Their strategy involved the following steps:

• Using primary microbiome data to identify, by abundance, the microorganisms underlying dysbiosis.
• Gaining insight into the interactions among the identified pathogens.
• Conducting a correlation analysis to identify potential lead probiotic strains that antagonize these pathogens and discovering metabolites that can interrupt their interactions.
• Creating a prototype formulation for testing.
• Validating the efficacy of the candidate formulation via preclinical in vitro and in vivo testing.
• Conducting clinical testing.

Dr. Ghannoum recommends that companies use a similar process “to provide evidence that what they are doing will be helpful, not only for them but also for the reputation of the whole industry.”
 

Potential Pitfalls

Whether test results from commercial companies are positioned as wellness aids or diagnostic tools, providing advice based on the results “is where the danger can really come in,” Dr. Kao said. “There is still so much we don’t know about which microbial signatures are associated with each condition.”

“Even when we have a solution, like the Crohn’s exclusion diet, a physician doesn’t know enough of the nuances to give advice to a patient,” she said. “That really should be done under the guidance of an expert dietitian. And if a company is selling probiotics, I personally feel that’s not ethical. I’m pretty sure there’s always going to be some kind of conflict of interest.”

Supplements and probiotics are generally safe, but negative consequences can occur, Dr. von Rosenvinge noted.

“We occasionally see people who end up with liver problems as a result of certain supplements, and rarely, probiotics have been associated with infections from those organisms, usually in those with a compromised immune system,” he said.

Other risks include people taking supplements or probiotics when they actually have a medically treatable condition or delays in diagnosis of a potentially serious underlying condition, such as colon cancer, he said. Some patients may stop taking their traditional medication in favor of taking supplements or may experience a drug-supplement interaction if they take both.
 

What to Tell Patients

“Doctors should be advising against this testing for their patients,” gastroenterologist Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “I explain to patients that these tests are not validated and are clinically meaningless data and not worth the money. There is a reason they are not covered by insurance.

“Recommendations to purchase probiotics or supplements manufactured by the testing company to ‘restore a balanced or healthy microbiome’ clearly seem like a scam,” she added. “I believe some of these companies are capitalizing on patients who are desperate for answers to explain chronic symptoms, such as bloating in irritable bowel syndrome.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge said that the message to patients “is that the science isn’t there yet to support using the results of these tests in a meaningful way. We believe the microbiome is very important in health and disease, but the tests themselves in their current state are not as reliable and reproducible as we would like.”

When patients come in with test results, the first question a clinician should ask is what led them to seek out this type of information in the first place, Dr. von Rosenvinge said.

“Our patient focus groups suggested that many have not gotten clear, satisfactory answers from traditional medicine,” he said. “We don’t have a single test that says, yes, you have irritable bowel syndrome, or no, you don’t. We might suggest things that are helpful for some people and are less helpful for others.”

Dr. Kelly said she worries that “there are snake oil salesmen and cons out there who will gladly take your money. These may be smart people, capable of doing very high-level testing, and even producing very detailed and accurate results, but that doesn’t mean we know what to do with them.”

She hopes to see a microbiome-based diagnostic test in the future, particularly if the ability to therapeutically manipulate the gut microbiome in various diseases becomes a reality.
 

Educate Clinicians, Companies

More education is needed on the subject, so we can become “microbial clinicians,” Dr. Kao said.

“The microbiome never came up when I was going through my medical education,” she said. But we, and the next generation of physicians, “need to at least be able to understand the basics.

“Hopefully, one day, we will be in a position where we can have meaningful interpretations of the test results and make some kind of meaningful dietary interventions,” Dr. Kao added.

As for clinicians who are currently ordering these tests and products directly from the DTC companies, Dr. Kao said, “I roll my eyes.”

Dr. Ghannoum reiterated that companies offering microbiome tests and products also need to be educated and encouraged to use systematic approaches to product development and interpretation.

“Companies should be open to calls from clinicians and be ready to explain findings on a report, as well as the basis for any recommendations,” he said.

Dr. von Rosenvinge, Dr. Kao, and Dr. Kelly had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Ghannoum is a cofounder of BIOHM.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.