Feature

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum (PROS) encompasses a set of rare disorders caused by pathogenic variants in the phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) gene. Under normal circumstances, this pathway is activated by the stimulation of tyrosine kinase receptors that leads to tightly regulated cell growth, proliferation, and migration. However, in PROS, pathogenic variants in the PI3KCA gene lead to an abnormal accumulation of the enzyme at the cell membrane, resulting in persistent activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and dysregulated cell overgrowth.

Excessive cell growth and proliferation leads to the overgrowth of tissues and organs characteristically seen in PROS. Because PIK3CA pathogenic variants are not present in every cell, only certain areas of the body are affected by overgrowth; these can range from isolated digits to whole limbs, the trunk, or one or more tissues or organs.

The diagnosis of PROS is typically confirmed through genetic testing of the PIK3CA gene, which can identify the specific pathogenic variants responsible for the disorder.

Here are five things to know about PROS.

1. PROS comprises a heterogeneous group of rare congenital diseases.

PROS is a term used to describe a group of rare congenital disorders that are characterized by abnormal, segmental, or lateralized growth of various body tissues and regions. These disorders are linked by a common cause: mosaic pathogenic gain-of-function variants in the PIK3CA gene. The genetic pathogenic variants that cause these disorders are not passed down from parent to child but instead result from changes to genes during embryonic development.

PROS encompasses a range of clinical entities, each with its own set of characteristics but sharing phenotypic similarities. These clinical entities include:

• Fibroadipose hyperplasia (also called fibroadipose overgrowth)
• CLOVES syndrome (congenital lipomatosis overgrowth, vascular malformations, epidermal nevi, and scoliosis/skeletal or spinal abnormalities)
• Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome
• Megalencephaly-capillary malformation (MCAP) syndrome
• Hemihyperplasia‐multiple lipomatosis syndrome
• Dysplastic megalencephaly, hemimegalencephaly, and focal cortical dysplasia
• Facial infiltrating lipomatosis (a congenital disorder that causes overgrowth of one side of the face)
• Macrodactyly
• Isolated tissue dysplasia-overgrowth phenotypes: lymphatic malformations, vascular malformations, venous malformations, lipomatosis
• CLAPO syndrome (capillary malformation of the lower lip, lymphatic malformation of the face and neck, asymmetry, and partial/generalized overgrowth)

The global epidemiologic characteristics of PROS are not well documented, but it is estimated that each of these conditions individually has a prevalence rate of fewer than 1 case per million population, and the collective prevalence of PROS-related syndromes is 14 cases per million population. Owing to its low prevalence and the variety of diseases it encompasses, PROS is classified as a rare disease.

2. PROS diseases have specific phenotypic features with common characteristics that result in overlapping phenomena.

The severity of clinical presentation varies in patients with PROS; some have tissue-specific distribution whereas others are more pleiotropic. In general, this condition is marked by segmental overgrowth of multiple tissues, including:

• Organs and other tissues: Excessive and asymmetric overgrowth can affect the skin, bones, muscles, and other structures, leading to disfigurement and functional impairments. The overgrowth typically follows a distal to proximal pattern, mostly unilateral and affecting the lower limbs.
• Brain: Enlargement of specific structures, including ventriculomegaly, a thick corpus callosum, or cerebellar tonsillar ectopia, can cause megalencephaly, which can lead to developmental delay, seizures, cortical dysplasia, and/or hydrocephalus.
• Vasculature: Capillary, venous, arteriovenous, and lymphatic malformations are common and occur in about 43% of patients. These abnormalities can contribute to additional complications, including swelling, pain, and increased risk for bleeding.
• Skin: Thickened epidermal nevi and pigmentary anomalies, such as hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, are common. These skin manifestations can be early signs of PROS and may aid in diagnosis.
• Skeletal system: Anomalies can include polydactyly, macrodactyly, macrodontia, and scoliosis or other spinal abnormalities.
• Lipomatosis overgrowth: This can occur with or without regional reduction of adipose tissue on the trunk and limbs.
• Lymphatic system: Isolated malformations may include dilated vascular channels lined by lymphatic endothelial cells, which may lead to fluid-filled cysts that usually grow proportionally with the growth of the affected person and may cause pain or significant morbidity if they are infiltrative.

3. Treatment for a PROS disorder may involve targeted options, surgical interventions, and supportive care.

Historically, treatment for overgrowth syndromes such as PROS primarily involved conservative management, focusing on addressing complications through surgical excision, orthopedic surgery, sclerotherapy, embolization, and compressive therapies. However, these strategies often proved insufficient, and patients frequently experienced relapse and progression of the condition. Indeed, PROS is a complex condition that requires a multifaceted treatment approach.

The discovery of the PIK3/AKT/mTOR activation pathway in these syndromes marked a significant therapeutic breakthrough. Targeted therapies, such as the use of mTOR inhibitors like sirolimus, have shown benefits in treating venous and lymphatic malformations in patients with PROS. More recently, a selective PIK3CA inhibitor, alpelisib, has been approved. This drug has demonstrated remarkable improvements in patients with various PROS phenotypes, including reductions in capillary malformations; cessation of chronic gastrointestinal bleeding; and improvements in scoliosis and cognitive function, particularly in patients with MCAP syndrome.

Supportive care is also a critical component of managing PROS. This includes surgical interventions for significant overgrowth, orthopedic care for scoliosis and leg-length discrepancies, and neurosurgical interventions for neurologic complications such as obstructive hydrocephalus and epilepsy. Vascular and lymphatic malformations may be treated with sclerotherapy, laser therapy, or medications such as sirolimus. Additionally, routine treatment for associated conditions such as cardiac and renal abnormalities, intellectual disabilities, polydactyly, coagulopathy, and hypothyroidism is essential. For those with pain, identifying and treating the underlying cause is crucial. In cases of severe persistent hypoglycemia, ongoing treatment, which may include cornstarch administration, is necessary. Owing to the complexity and varied manifestations of PROS, specialized multidisciplinary care for diagnosis, follow-up, and optimal management is recommended.

4. PROS is a heterogeneous condition, and the clinical presentation can vary widely among affected individuals.

PROS is a complex and heterogeneous condition characterized by a wide range of clinical presentations, reflecting the diversity of affected tissues and the extent of overgrowth. Phenotypes within PROS are diverse and can range from a single lesion (ie, solitary macrodactyly) to systemic diseases (ie, Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome and CLOVES syndrome).

This heterogeneity is primarily due to the timing of the onset of the somatic causative PIK3CA pathogenic variants during embryonic and fetal development, influencing the degree of mosaicism and the combination of tissues involved (eg, neural progenitor cell pathogenic variants can lead to postnatal megalencephaly and hydrocephalus). Moreover, different gain-of-function variants in PIK3CA lead to varying levels of hyperactivation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, resulting in diverse severity of abnormal proliferation of mesodermal and ectodermal tissues from embryogenesis onward.

This spectrum of symptoms underscores the complexity and variability of PROS, necessitating a tailored approach to diagnosis and management.

5. Regular surveillance is crucial for the effective management of PROS

Comprehensive and regular monitoring is essential to address the diverse and evolving clinical manifestations of PROS. During each medical visit, it is essential to measure growth parameters, including head circumference and the length of arms, hands, legs, and feet. This assessment helps identify any new neurologic symptoms such as seizures, changes in muscle tone, or signs of Chiari malformation.

Additionally, monitoring the patient’s developmental progress, behavior, and motor skills is vital. Clinical assessments for conditions like scoliosis and abdominal examinations for organomegaly or abdominal masses are also recommended.

Imaging plays a significant role in the ongoing evaluation of PROS. Serial head MRI is advised, with the frequency depending on the initial severity of findings and the degree of brain maturation. For patients with central nervous system overgrowth or dysplasia, brain MRI every 6 months until age 2 years, followed by annual scans until age 8 years, is recommended to monitor for progressive hydrocephalus and Chiari malformation.

Further specialized assessments may be required based on individual clinical indications. These include monitoring of vascular and lymphatic malformations, radiographs of limbs in cases of limb overgrowth, and follow-up ultrasonography or MRI for truncal overgrowth. Spinal MRI is necessary for patients with scoliosis or spinal deformities.

In cases of persistent hypoglycemia, particularly those needing ongoing treatment, blood glucose monitoring and evaluation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis are important.

Postsurgical patients, especially those with the CLOVES phenotype or vascular malformations, should have a hematology consultation to assess thrombosis and coagulopathy risks. The use of renal ultrasonography every 3 months until age 8 years is suggested for tumor screening, such as Wilms tumor, although this practice is somewhat controversial.

These comprehensive and tailored approaches are critical in managing the complex and varied aspects of PROS, ensuring optimal care and monitoring for affected individuals.

Dr. Keppler-Noreuil is professor of pediatrics, division of genetics and metabolism, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health; clinical director, department of pediatrics, division of genetics and metabolism; program director, medical genetics and genomics residency, Waisman Center & UW Pediatric Specialty Clinics, University of Wisconsin. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum (PROS) encompasses a set of rare disorders caused by pathogenic variants in the phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) gene. Under normal circumstances, this pathway is activated by the stimulation of tyrosine kinase receptors that leads to tightly regulated cell growth, proliferation, and migration. However, in PROS, pathogenic variants in the PI3KCA gene lead to an abnormal accumulation of the enzyme at the cell membrane, resulting in persistent activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and dysregulated cell overgrowth.

Excessive cell growth and proliferation leads to the overgrowth of tissues and organs characteristically seen in PROS. Because PIK3CA pathogenic variants are not present in every cell, only certain areas of the body are affected by overgrowth; these can range from isolated digits to whole limbs, the trunk, or one or more tissues or organs.

The diagnosis of PROS is typically confirmed through genetic testing of the PIK3CA gene, which can identify the specific pathogenic variants responsible for the disorder.

Here are five things to know about PROS.

1. PROS comprises a heterogeneous group of rare congenital diseases.

PROS is a term used to describe a group of rare congenital disorders that are characterized by abnormal, segmental, or lateralized growth of various body tissues and regions. These disorders are linked by a common cause: mosaic pathogenic gain-of-function variants in the PIK3CA gene. The genetic pathogenic variants that cause these disorders are not passed down from parent to child but instead result from changes to genes during embryonic development.

PROS encompasses a range of clinical entities, each with its own set of characteristics but sharing phenotypic similarities. These clinical entities include:

• Fibroadipose hyperplasia (also called fibroadipose overgrowth)
• CLOVES syndrome (congenital lipomatosis overgrowth, vascular malformations, epidermal nevi, and scoliosis/skeletal or spinal abnormalities)
• Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome
• Megalencephaly-capillary malformation (MCAP) syndrome
• Hemihyperplasia‐multiple lipomatosis syndrome
• Dysplastic megalencephaly, hemimegalencephaly, and focal cortical dysplasia
• Facial infiltrating lipomatosis (a congenital disorder that causes overgrowth of one side of the face)
• Macrodactyly
• Isolated tissue dysplasia-overgrowth phenotypes: lymphatic malformations, vascular malformations, venous malformations, lipomatosis
• CLAPO syndrome (capillary malformation of the lower lip, lymphatic malformation of the face and neck, asymmetry, and partial/generalized overgrowth)

The global epidemiologic characteristics of PROS are not well documented, but it is estimated that each of these conditions individually has a prevalence rate of fewer than 1 case per million population, and the collective prevalence of PROS-related syndromes is 14 cases per million population. Owing to its low prevalence and the variety of diseases it encompasses, PROS is classified as a rare disease.

2. PROS diseases have specific phenotypic features with common characteristics that result in overlapping phenomena.

The severity of clinical presentation varies in patients with PROS; some have tissue-specific distribution whereas others are more pleiotropic. In general, this condition is marked by segmental overgrowth of multiple tissues, including:

• Organs and other tissues: Excessive and asymmetric overgrowth can affect the skin, bones, muscles, and other structures, leading to disfigurement and functional impairments. The overgrowth typically follows a distal to proximal pattern, mostly unilateral and affecting the lower limbs.
• Brain: Enlargement of specific structures, including ventriculomegaly, a thick corpus callosum, or cerebellar tonsillar ectopia, can cause megalencephaly, which can lead to developmental delay, seizures, cortical dysplasia, and/or hydrocephalus.
• Vasculature: Capillary, venous, arteriovenous, and lymphatic malformations are common and occur in about 43% of patients. These abnormalities can contribute to additional complications, including swelling, pain, and increased risk for bleeding.
• Skin: Thickened epidermal nevi and pigmentary anomalies, such as hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, are common. These skin manifestations can be early signs of PROS and may aid in diagnosis.
• Skeletal system: Anomalies can include polydactyly, macrodactyly, macrodontia, and scoliosis or other spinal abnormalities.
• Lipomatosis overgrowth: This can occur with or without regional reduction of adipose tissue on the trunk and limbs.
• Lymphatic system: Isolated malformations may include dilated vascular channels lined by lymphatic endothelial cells, which may lead to fluid-filled cysts that usually grow proportionally with the growth of the affected person and may cause pain or significant morbidity if they are infiltrative.

3. Treatment for a PROS disorder may involve targeted options, surgical interventions, and supportive care.

Historically, treatment for overgrowth syndromes such as PROS primarily involved conservative management, focusing on addressing complications through surgical excision, orthopedic surgery, sclerotherapy, embolization, and compressive therapies. However, these strategies often proved insufficient, and patients frequently experienced relapse and progression of the condition. Indeed, PROS is a complex condition that requires a multifaceted treatment approach.

The discovery of the PIK3/AKT/mTOR activation pathway in these syndromes marked a significant therapeutic breakthrough. Targeted therapies, such as the use of mTOR inhibitors like sirolimus, have shown benefits in treating venous and lymphatic malformations in patients with PROS. More recently, a selective PIK3CA inhibitor, alpelisib, has been approved. This drug has demonstrated remarkable improvements in patients with various PROS phenotypes, including reductions in capillary malformations; cessation of chronic gastrointestinal bleeding; and improvements in scoliosis and cognitive function, particularly in patients with MCAP syndrome.

Supportive care is also a critical component of managing PROS. This includes surgical interventions for significant overgrowth, orthopedic care for scoliosis and leg-length discrepancies, and neurosurgical interventions for neurologic complications such as obstructive hydrocephalus and epilepsy. Vascular and lymphatic malformations may be treated with sclerotherapy, laser therapy, or medications such as sirolimus. Additionally, routine treatment for associated conditions such as cardiac and renal abnormalities, intellectual disabilities, polydactyly, coagulopathy, and hypothyroidism is essential. For those with pain, identifying and treating the underlying cause is crucial. In cases of severe persistent hypoglycemia, ongoing treatment, which may include cornstarch administration, is necessary. Owing to the complexity and varied manifestations of PROS, specialized multidisciplinary care for diagnosis, follow-up, and optimal management is recommended.

4. PROS is a heterogeneous condition, and the clinical presentation can vary widely among affected individuals.

PROS is a complex and heterogeneous condition characterized by a wide range of clinical presentations, reflecting the diversity of affected tissues and the extent of overgrowth. Phenotypes within PROS are diverse and can range from a single lesion (ie, solitary macrodactyly) to systemic diseases (ie, Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome and CLOVES syndrome).

This heterogeneity is primarily due to the timing of the onset of the somatic causative PIK3CA pathogenic variants during embryonic and fetal development, influencing the degree of mosaicism and the combination of tissues involved (eg, neural progenitor cell pathogenic variants can lead to postnatal megalencephaly and hydrocephalus). Moreover, different gain-of-function variants in PIK3CA lead to varying levels of hyperactivation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, resulting in diverse severity of abnormal proliferation of mesodermal and ectodermal tissues from embryogenesis onward.

This spectrum of symptoms underscores the complexity and variability of PROS, necessitating a tailored approach to diagnosis and management.

5. Regular surveillance is crucial for the effective management of PROS

Comprehensive and regular monitoring is essential to address the diverse and evolving clinical manifestations of PROS. During each medical visit, it is essential to measure growth parameters, including head circumference and the length of arms, hands, legs, and feet. This assessment helps identify any new neurologic symptoms such as seizures, changes in muscle tone, or signs of Chiari malformation.

Additionally, monitoring the patient’s developmental progress, behavior, and motor skills is vital. Clinical assessments for conditions like scoliosis and abdominal examinations for organomegaly or abdominal masses are also recommended.

Imaging plays a significant role in the ongoing evaluation of PROS. Serial head MRI is advised, with the frequency depending on the initial severity of findings and the degree of brain maturation. For patients with central nervous system overgrowth or dysplasia, brain MRI every 6 months until age 2 years, followed by annual scans until age 8 years, is recommended to monitor for progressive hydrocephalus and Chiari malformation.

Further specialized assessments may be required based on individual clinical indications. These include monitoring of vascular and lymphatic malformations, radiographs of limbs in cases of limb overgrowth, and follow-up ultrasonography or MRI for truncal overgrowth. Spinal MRI is necessary for patients with scoliosis or spinal deformities.

In cases of persistent hypoglycemia, particularly those needing ongoing treatment, blood glucose monitoring and evaluation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis are important.

Postsurgical patients, especially those with the CLOVES phenotype or vascular malformations, should have a hematology consultation to assess thrombosis and coagulopathy risks. The use of renal ultrasonography every 3 months until age 8 years is suggested for tumor screening, such as Wilms tumor, although this practice is somewhat controversial.

These comprehensive and tailored approaches are critical in managing the complex and varied aspects of PROS, ensuring optimal care and monitoring for affected individuals.

Dr. Keppler-Noreuil is professor of pediatrics, division of genetics and metabolism, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health; clinical director, department of pediatrics, division of genetics and metabolism; program director, medical genetics and genomics residency, Waisman Center & UW Pediatric Specialty Clinics, University of Wisconsin. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum (PROS) encompasses a set of rare disorders caused by pathogenic variants in the phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) gene. Under normal circumstances, this pathway is activated by the stimulation of tyrosine kinase receptors that leads to tightly regulated cell growth, proliferation, and migration. However, in PROS, pathogenic variants in the PI3KCA gene lead to an abnormal accumulation of the enzyme at the cell membrane, resulting in persistent activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and dysregulated cell overgrowth.

Excessive cell growth and proliferation leads to the overgrowth of tissues and organs characteristically seen in PROS. Because PIK3CA pathogenic variants are not present in every cell, only certain areas of the body are affected by overgrowth; these can range from isolated digits to whole limbs, the trunk, or one or more tissues or organs.

The diagnosis of PROS is typically confirmed through genetic testing of the PIK3CA gene, which can identify the specific pathogenic variants responsible for the disorder.

Here are five things to know about PROS.

1. PROS comprises a heterogeneous group of rare congenital diseases.

PROS is a term used to describe a group of rare congenital disorders that are characterized by abnormal, segmental, or lateralized growth of various body tissues and regions. These disorders are linked by a common cause: mosaic pathogenic gain-of-function variants in the PIK3CA gene. The genetic pathogenic variants that cause these disorders are not passed down from parent to child but instead result from changes to genes during embryonic development.

PROS encompasses a range of clinical entities, each with its own set of characteristics but sharing phenotypic similarities. These clinical entities include:

• Fibroadipose hyperplasia (also called fibroadipose overgrowth)
• CLOVES syndrome (congenital lipomatosis overgrowth, vascular malformations, epidermal nevi, and scoliosis/skeletal or spinal abnormalities)
• Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome
• Megalencephaly-capillary malformation (MCAP) syndrome
• Hemihyperplasia‐multiple lipomatosis syndrome
• Dysplastic megalencephaly, hemimegalencephaly, and focal cortical dysplasia
• Facial infiltrating lipomatosis (a congenital disorder that causes overgrowth of one side of the face)
• Macrodactyly
• Isolated tissue dysplasia-overgrowth phenotypes: lymphatic malformations, vascular malformations, venous malformations, lipomatosis
• CLAPO syndrome (capillary malformation of the lower lip, lymphatic malformation of the face and neck, asymmetry, and partial/generalized overgrowth)

The global epidemiologic characteristics of PROS are not well documented, but it is estimated that each of these conditions individually has a prevalence rate of fewer than 1 case per million population, and the collective prevalence of PROS-related syndromes is 14 cases per million population. Owing to its low prevalence and the variety of diseases it encompasses, PROS is classified as a rare disease.

2. PROS diseases have specific phenotypic features with common characteristics that result in overlapping phenomena.

The severity of clinical presentation varies in patients with PROS; some have tissue-specific distribution whereas others are more pleiotropic. In general, this condition is marked by segmental overgrowth of multiple tissues, including:

• Organs and other tissues: Excessive and asymmetric overgrowth can affect the skin, bones, muscles, and other structures, leading to disfigurement and functional impairments. The overgrowth typically follows a distal to proximal pattern, mostly unilateral and affecting the lower limbs.
• Brain: Enlargement of specific structures, including ventriculomegaly, a thick corpus callosum, or cerebellar tonsillar ectopia, can cause megalencephaly, which can lead to developmental delay, seizures, cortical dysplasia, and/or hydrocephalus.
• Vasculature: Capillary, venous, arteriovenous, and lymphatic malformations are common and occur in about 43% of patients. These abnormalities can contribute to additional complications, including swelling, pain, and increased risk for bleeding.
• Skin: Thickened epidermal nevi and pigmentary anomalies, such as hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, are common. These skin manifestations can be early signs of PROS and may aid in diagnosis.
• Skeletal system: Anomalies can include polydactyly, macrodactyly, macrodontia, and scoliosis or other spinal abnormalities.
• Lipomatosis overgrowth: This can occur with or without regional reduction of adipose tissue on the trunk and limbs.
• Lymphatic system: Isolated malformations may include dilated vascular channels lined by lymphatic endothelial cells, which may lead to fluid-filled cysts that usually grow proportionally with the growth of the affected person and may cause pain or significant morbidity if they are infiltrative.

3. Treatment for a PROS disorder may involve targeted options, surgical interventions, and supportive care.

Historically, treatment for overgrowth syndromes such as PROS primarily involved conservative management, focusing on addressing complications through surgical excision, orthopedic surgery, sclerotherapy, embolization, and compressive therapies. However, these strategies often proved insufficient, and patients frequently experienced relapse and progression of the condition. Indeed, PROS is a complex condition that requires a multifaceted treatment approach.

The discovery of the PIK3/AKT/mTOR activation pathway in these syndromes marked a significant therapeutic breakthrough. Targeted therapies, such as the use of mTOR inhibitors like sirolimus, have shown benefits in treating venous and lymphatic malformations in patients with PROS. More recently, a selective PIK3CA inhibitor, alpelisib, has been approved. This drug has demonstrated remarkable improvements in patients with various PROS phenotypes, including reductions in capillary malformations; cessation of chronic gastrointestinal bleeding; and improvements in scoliosis and cognitive function, particularly in patients with MCAP syndrome.

Supportive care is also a critical component of managing PROS. This includes surgical interventions for significant overgrowth, orthopedic care for scoliosis and leg-length discrepancies, and neurosurgical interventions for neurologic complications such as obstructive hydrocephalus and epilepsy. Vascular and lymphatic malformations may be treated with sclerotherapy, laser therapy, or medications such as sirolimus. Additionally, routine treatment for associated conditions such as cardiac and renal abnormalities, intellectual disabilities, polydactyly, coagulopathy, and hypothyroidism is essential. For those with pain, identifying and treating the underlying cause is crucial. In cases of severe persistent hypoglycemia, ongoing treatment, which may include cornstarch administration, is necessary. Owing to the complexity and varied manifestations of PROS, specialized multidisciplinary care for diagnosis, follow-up, and optimal management is recommended.

4. PROS is a heterogeneous condition, and the clinical presentation can vary widely among affected individuals.

PROS is a complex and heterogeneous condition characterized by a wide range of clinical presentations, reflecting the diversity of affected tissues and the extent of overgrowth. Phenotypes within PROS are diverse and can range from a single lesion (ie, solitary macrodactyly) to systemic diseases (ie, Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome and CLOVES syndrome).

This heterogeneity is primarily due to the timing of the onset of the somatic causative PIK3CA pathogenic variants during embryonic and fetal development, influencing the degree of mosaicism and the combination of tissues involved (eg, neural progenitor cell pathogenic variants can lead to postnatal megalencephaly and hydrocephalus). Moreover, different gain-of-function variants in PIK3CA lead to varying levels of hyperactivation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, resulting in diverse severity of abnormal proliferation of mesodermal and ectodermal tissues from embryogenesis onward.

This spectrum of symptoms underscores the complexity and variability of PROS, necessitating a tailored approach to diagnosis and management.

5. Regular surveillance is crucial for the effective management of PROS

Comprehensive and regular monitoring is essential to address the diverse and evolving clinical manifestations of PROS. During each medical visit, it is essential to measure growth parameters, including head circumference and the length of arms, hands, legs, and feet. This assessment helps identify any new neurologic symptoms such as seizures, changes in muscle tone, or signs of Chiari malformation.

Additionally, monitoring the patient’s developmental progress, behavior, and motor skills is vital. Clinical assessments for conditions like scoliosis and abdominal examinations for organomegaly or abdominal masses are also recommended.

Imaging plays a significant role in the ongoing evaluation of PROS. Serial head MRI is advised, with the frequency depending on the initial severity of findings and the degree of brain maturation. For patients with central nervous system overgrowth or dysplasia, brain MRI every 6 months until age 2 years, followed by annual scans until age 8 years, is recommended to monitor for progressive hydrocephalus and Chiari malformation.

Further specialized assessments may be required based on individual clinical indications. These include monitoring of vascular and lymphatic malformations, radiographs of limbs in cases of limb overgrowth, and follow-up ultrasonography or MRI for truncal overgrowth. Spinal MRI is necessary for patients with scoliosis or spinal deformities.

In cases of persistent hypoglycemia, particularly those needing ongoing treatment, blood glucose monitoring and evaluation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis are important.

Postsurgical patients, especially those with the CLOVES phenotype or vascular malformations, should have a hematology consultation to assess thrombosis and coagulopathy risks. The use of renal ultrasonography every 3 months until age 8 years is suggested for tumor screening, such as Wilms tumor, although this practice is somewhat controversial.

These comprehensive and tailored approaches are critical in managing the complex and varied aspects of PROS, ensuring optimal care and monitoring for affected individuals.

Dr. Keppler-Noreuil is professor of pediatrics, division of genetics and metabolism, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health; clinical director, department of pediatrics, division of genetics and metabolism; program director, medical genetics and genomics residency, Waisman Center & UW Pediatric Specialty Clinics, University of Wisconsin. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

A recent study linking a niacin derivative to an increased risk for cardiovascular events has raised questions about the safety of this B vitamin, which is added to many food staples in the Western diet and taken in the form of supplements.

The findings, which were published in Nature Medicine, may also help explain why taking niacin, which lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and raises high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, did not lead to a reduction in cardiovascular events in major clinical trials.

But could this essential micronutrient really have an adverse effect on cardiovascular risk, and what are the implications for niacin intake?

Senior author of the new study Stanley Hazen, MD, believes some prudence on excessive niacin intake may be justified.

“I’m not suggesting we should completely avoid niacin — it is an essential nutrient, but our results suggest that too much may be harmful,” Dr. Hazen said.

Niacin supplements are also sold with claims of antiaging effects, arthritis relief, and boosting brain function, although none of these claims have been proven. And the related compound, nicotinamide, is recommended to prevent skin cancer in high-risk patients; however, a recent study questioned that guidance.

“I would say to the general public that avoiding supplements containing niacin or related compounds could be a sensible approach at present, while these findings are investigated further.”

Other experts are unsure if such action is justified on the basis of this single study.
 

Residual Cardiovascular Risk

Dr. Hazen, who is chair of the Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Sciences, at the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, explained to this news organization that they did not set out to study niacin.

“It began as a study to look for novel pathways involved in residual cardiovascular disease risk — the risk for cardiovascular events after adjusting for traditional risk factors such as cholesterol, blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The researchers began looking for compounds in plasma that predicted future adverse cardiovascular events in individuals undergoing elective diagnostic cardiac evaluation. Two of the leading candidates identified were niacin derivatives — 2PY and 4PY — that are only formed in the presence of excess niacin.

They then developed assays to measure 2PY and 4PY and conducted further studies in two validation cohorts — 2331 US individuals and a European cohort of 832 individuals. In both cohorts, elevated plasma levels of 2PY and 4PY predicted future adverse cardiovascular events, with a doubling in cardiovascular risk seen in those with levels in the highest vs the lowest quartile.

To move beyond these observational studies and to explore a potentially causal relationship, Dr. Hazen’s team went on to perform genome-wide association studies and found that genetic variants that tracked with higher levels of 4PY also linked to levels of the inflammatory marker, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1).

And in cell culture and animal studies, they found that 4PY was a driver of inflammation, upregulating VCAM-1 and eliciting vascular inflammation responses.

“So, we have shown in several different ways that the niacin derivative, 4PY, is linked to increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Hazen commented.
 

Significant Health Implications?

Dr. Hazen believed these findings could have significant health implications.

He noted that Western populations have been consuming large amounts of niacin ever since World War 2 when we began to fortify many foods with essential vitamins to avoid diseases caused by deficiencies. Niacin was added to foods to prevent pellagra — a disease characterized by inflamed skin, diarrhea, and dementia, that was often fatal.

“While we may have eliminated pellagra, have we, as a consequence, increased the prevalence of cardiovascular disease many years later?” Dr. Hazen asked.

This may be a clue to why niacin does not lower cardiovascular risk as much as would be expected from the degree of cholesterol lowering it brings about. “This is the niacin paradox and has led to the thought that there could be some kind of adverse effect that niacin is promoting. I think we may have found something that contributes to the niacin paradox,” he said.

However, the niacin pathway is complicated. Niacin is the major source of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), an integral molecule that allows cells to create energy. “Because it is so important, our bodies are designed to salvage and retain NADs, but once storage capacity is exceeded, then these 4PY and 2PY derivatives are generated,” Dr. Hazen explained. “But you have to really eat a lot of niacin-rich foods for this to happen.”

He is not claiming that niacin causes cardiovascular disease. “It is 4PY that appears to be the driver of vascular inflammation. And 4PY is a breakdown product of niacin. But there is more than one pathway that could lead to 4PY generation. There is a whole interconnecting network of compounds that interchange with each other — known as the niacin pool — any one or more of these compounds can be ingested and raise pool levels and ultimately 4PY levels. However, by far and away, niacin is one of the major sources,” Dr. Hazen commented.
 

Are High-Protein Diets Also Implicated?

Other sources of NADs include tryptophan, present in protein. And one of the genetic variants linked to changes in 4PY levels is connected to how dietary protein is directed into the niacin pool, raising the possibility that a high-protein diet may also raise cardiovascular risk in some people, Dr. Hazen noted.

Dr. Hazen estimated that about 3% of the niacin pool in a normal diet comes from protein intake, but that the percentage could increase substantially in very high–protein diets.

“Our data support the concept that if we lower our 4PY level long-term, then that would result in a reduction in cardiovascular disease. But this is still just a hypothesis. If we lower niacin intake, we will lower 4PY,” Dr. Hazen stated.

He said that this research is at too early a stage to give firm recommendations in what this means for the consumer.

“Based on these findings, I would advise people to avoid taking niacin or nicotinic acid or nicotinamide supplements and to eat a sensible balanced diet — maybe not to overdo the high protein–type diets. That’s all we can really say at the moment.”

Noting that niacin can also be one of the major components in energy drinks, he suggested it may be prudent to limit consumption of these products.
 

What Is the Optimum Niacin Intake?

Dr. Hazen noted that the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for niacin is well known — between 14 and 18 mg, but he said the average American ingests four times that amount, and some people have substantially higher intakes — up to 50 times the RDA if taking supplements.

While food fortification with niacin may have been useful in the past, Dr. Hazen questioned whether it should still be mandated.

“In the US, you cannot buy flour or cereal or rice that is not fortified. And if you look closely, some products have much higher levels than those that are mandated. The food companies advertise this as a benefit, but there is no good data in support of that. What if several decades of eating excessive amounts of niacin has led to an increase in cardiovascular disease?”

He does not propose stopping all niacin fortification, “but maybe, we could have the choice of selecting an unfortified option,” he said.
 

Causal Link Not Proven

Commenting for this news organization, John Guyton, MD, Professor Emeritus of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, who has been involved in niacin research for many years, said the Nature Medicine study showed “interesting and important results,” but they do not at this point prove a causal link between niacin intake and risk for cardiovascular disease.

“These findings need to be investigated further, and more studies are certainly justified, but I don’t think that this study alone makes an adequate case for restricting niacin intake, or thinking about stopping niacin fortification of foodstuffs,” Dr. Guyton said.

Noting that niacin is present in large quantities in many fast foods, he suggested the researchers may have just picked up the consequences of eating an unhealthy diet.

“If you look at foods that contain high quantities of niacin, red meat is at the top of the list. And if you think of a hamburger, niacin is present in relatively large quantities both the burger and the bun. So, these findings may just be a reflection of an overall unhealthy diet,” he commented.

Dr. Guyton also pointed out that major clinical trials with niacin have shown mixed results, and its effect on cardiovascular risk is still not completely understood. While the HPS2-THRIVE and AIM-HIGH trials did not show benefits in reducing cardiovascular events, an earlier study, the Coronary Drug Project in which the agent was given with food, did show some positive effects with substantial reductions in myocardial infarction and stroke, and there was the suggestion of a reduction in long-term mortality in the niacin group several years after the trial had ended.
 

Nicotinamide in Skin Cancer Prevention

What about the use of nicotinamide in skin cancer prevention?

Addressing this question, Kristin Bibee, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, pointed out that nicotinamide, although closely related to niacin, may have different effects. “This study does not specifically address nicotinamide supplementation and 4PY levels,” she said.

Diona Damian, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia, told this news organization that it was hard to extrapolate these findings on basal levels of niacin in a cardiac cohort to the administration of supra-physiological doses of nicotinamide for skin cancer prevention.

There may be different effects of supplemental niacin compared to nicotinamide, which lacks the vasodilatory effects seen with niacin, Dr. Damian said, adding that it would be interesting to see the results from higher, therapeutic nicotinamide doses in patients with and without cardiac disease.

She pointed out that high vs low levels of nicotinamide supplementation can have different and even opposite effects on cellular processes, such as upregulating or inhibiting DNA repair enzymes. At high doses, nicotinamide is anti-inflammatory in skin.

Dr. Damian noted that two phase 3 studies (ONTRAC and ONTRANS) of nicotinamide 500 mg twice daily for skin cancer prevention did not find a significant increase in cardiovascular events compared to placebo over 12 months.

“Oral nicotinamide has been shown to reduce nonmelanoma skin cancer by about a quarter in patients with normal immunity and multiple skin cancers. The doses used for skin cancer prevention are well above daily dietary levels, and treatment needs to be ongoing for the protective effects to continue. Nicotinamide should not be recommended as a preventive agent for people who have not had multiple skin cancers but should be reserved for those with a heavy burden of skin cancers,” she commented.

“For now, it would be reasonable to balance the benefits of skin cancer reduction against possible effects on inflammatory markers in patients with cardiac risk factors, when helping patients to decide whether or not nicotinamide therapy is appropriate for them,” she added.

Meanwhile, Dr. Hazen said the most exciting part of this new research is the discovery of a new pathway that contributes to cardiovascular disease and potentially a new target to treat residual cardiovascular risk.

“I believe our results show that we should be measuring 4PY levels and individuals with high levels need to be extra vigilant about lowering their cardiovascular risk.”

The next step will be to confirm these results in other populations and then to develop a diagnostic test to identify people with a high 4PY level, he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study linking a niacin derivative to an increased risk for cardiovascular events has raised questions about the safety of this B vitamin, which is added to many food staples in the Western diet and taken in the form of supplements.

The findings, which were published in Nature Medicine, may also help explain why taking niacin, which lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and raises high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, did not lead to a reduction in cardiovascular events in major clinical trials.

But could this essential micronutrient really have an adverse effect on cardiovascular risk, and what are the implications for niacin intake?

Senior author of the new study Stanley Hazen, MD, believes some prudence on excessive niacin intake may be justified.

“I’m not suggesting we should completely avoid niacin — it is an essential nutrient, but our results suggest that too much may be harmful,” Dr. Hazen said.

Niacin supplements are also sold with claims of antiaging effects, arthritis relief, and boosting brain function, although none of these claims have been proven. And the related compound, nicotinamide, is recommended to prevent skin cancer in high-risk patients; however, a recent study questioned that guidance.

“I would say to the general public that avoiding supplements containing niacin or related compounds could be a sensible approach at present, while these findings are investigated further.”

Other experts are unsure if such action is justified on the basis of this single study.
 

Residual Cardiovascular Risk

Dr. Hazen, who is chair of the Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Sciences, at the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, explained to this news organization that they did not set out to study niacin.

“It began as a study to look for novel pathways involved in residual cardiovascular disease risk — the risk for cardiovascular events after adjusting for traditional risk factors such as cholesterol, blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The researchers began looking for compounds in plasma that predicted future adverse cardiovascular events in individuals undergoing elective diagnostic cardiac evaluation. Two of the leading candidates identified were niacin derivatives — 2PY and 4PY — that are only formed in the presence of excess niacin.

They then developed assays to measure 2PY and 4PY and conducted further studies in two validation cohorts — 2331 US individuals and a European cohort of 832 individuals. In both cohorts, elevated plasma levels of 2PY and 4PY predicted future adverse cardiovascular events, with a doubling in cardiovascular risk seen in those with levels in the highest vs the lowest quartile.

To move beyond these observational studies and to explore a potentially causal relationship, Dr. Hazen’s team went on to perform genome-wide association studies and found that genetic variants that tracked with higher levels of 4PY also linked to levels of the inflammatory marker, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1).

And in cell culture and animal studies, they found that 4PY was a driver of inflammation, upregulating VCAM-1 and eliciting vascular inflammation responses.

“So, we have shown in several different ways that the niacin derivative, 4PY, is linked to increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Hazen commented.
 

Significant Health Implications?

Dr. Hazen believed these findings could have significant health implications.

He noted that Western populations have been consuming large amounts of niacin ever since World War 2 when we began to fortify many foods with essential vitamins to avoid diseases caused by deficiencies. Niacin was added to foods to prevent pellagra — a disease characterized by inflamed skin, diarrhea, and dementia, that was often fatal.

“While we may have eliminated pellagra, have we, as a consequence, increased the prevalence of cardiovascular disease many years later?” Dr. Hazen asked.

This may be a clue to why niacin does not lower cardiovascular risk as much as would be expected from the degree of cholesterol lowering it brings about. “This is the niacin paradox and has led to the thought that there could be some kind of adverse effect that niacin is promoting. I think we may have found something that contributes to the niacin paradox,” he said.

However, the niacin pathway is complicated. Niacin is the major source of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), an integral molecule that allows cells to create energy. “Because it is so important, our bodies are designed to salvage and retain NADs, but once storage capacity is exceeded, then these 4PY and 2PY derivatives are generated,” Dr. Hazen explained. “But you have to really eat a lot of niacin-rich foods for this to happen.”

He is not claiming that niacin causes cardiovascular disease. “It is 4PY that appears to be the driver of vascular inflammation. And 4PY is a breakdown product of niacin. But there is more than one pathway that could lead to 4PY generation. There is a whole interconnecting network of compounds that interchange with each other — known as the niacin pool — any one or more of these compounds can be ingested and raise pool levels and ultimately 4PY levels. However, by far and away, niacin is one of the major sources,” Dr. Hazen commented.
 

Are High-Protein Diets Also Implicated?

Other sources of NADs include tryptophan, present in protein. And one of the genetic variants linked to changes in 4PY levels is connected to how dietary protein is directed into the niacin pool, raising the possibility that a high-protein diet may also raise cardiovascular risk in some people, Dr. Hazen noted.

Dr. Hazen estimated that about 3% of the niacin pool in a normal diet comes from protein intake, but that the percentage could increase substantially in very high–protein diets.

“Our data support the concept that if we lower our 4PY level long-term, then that would result in a reduction in cardiovascular disease. But this is still just a hypothesis. If we lower niacin intake, we will lower 4PY,” Dr. Hazen stated.

He said that this research is at too early a stage to give firm recommendations in what this means for the consumer.

“Based on these findings, I would advise people to avoid taking niacin or nicotinic acid or nicotinamide supplements and to eat a sensible balanced diet — maybe not to overdo the high protein–type diets. That’s all we can really say at the moment.”

Noting that niacin can also be one of the major components in energy drinks, he suggested it may be prudent to limit consumption of these products.
 

What Is the Optimum Niacin Intake?

Dr. Hazen noted that the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for niacin is well known — between 14 and 18 mg, but he said the average American ingests four times that amount, and some people have substantially higher intakes — up to 50 times the RDA if taking supplements.

While food fortification with niacin may have been useful in the past, Dr. Hazen questioned whether it should still be mandated.

“In the US, you cannot buy flour or cereal or rice that is not fortified. And if you look closely, some products have much higher levels than those that are mandated. The food companies advertise this as a benefit, but there is no good data in support of that. What if several decades of eating excessive amounts of niacin has led to an increase in cardiovascular disease?”

He does not propose stopping all niacin fortification, “but maybe, we could have the choice of selecting an unfortified option,” he said.
 

Causal Link Not Proven

Commenting for this news organization, John Guyton, MD, Professor Emeritus of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, who has been involved in niacin research for many years, said the Nature Medicine study showed “interesting and important results,” but they do not at this point prove a causal link between niacin intake and risk for cardiovascular disease.

“These findings need to be investigated further, and more studies are certainly justified, but I don’t think that this study alone makes an adequate case for restricting niacin intake, or thinking about stopping niacin fortification of foodstuffs,” Dr. Guyton said.

Noting that niacin is present in large quantities in many fast foods, he suggested the researchers may have just picked up the consequences of eating an unhealthy diet.

“If you look at foods that contain high quantities of niacin, red meat is at the top of the list. And if you think of a hamburger, niacin is present in relatively large quantities both the burger and the bun. So, these findings may just be a reflection of an overall unhealthy diet,” he commented.

Dr. Guyton also pointed out that major clinical trials with niacin have shown mixed results, and its effect on cardiovascular risk is still not completely understood. While the HPS2-THRIVE and AIM-HIGH trials did not show benefits in reducing cardiovascular events, an earlier study, the Coronary Drug Project in which the agent was given with food, did show some positive effects with substantial reductions in myocardial infarction and stroke, and there was the suggestion of a reduction in long-term mortality in the niacin group several years after the trial had ended.
 

Nicotinamide in Skin Cancer Prevention

What about the use of nicotinamide in skin cancer prevention?

Addressing this question, Kristin Bibee, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, pointed out that nicotinamide, although closely related to niacin, may have different effects. “This study does not specifically address nicotinamide supplementation and 4PY levels,” she said.

Diona Damian, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia, told this news organization that it was hard to extrapolate these findings on basal levels of niacin in a cardiac cohort to the administration of supra-physiological doses of nicotinamide for skin cancer prevention.

There may be different effects of supplemental niacin compared to nicotinamide, which lacks the vasodilatory effects seen with niacin, Dr. Damian said, adding that it would be interesting to see the results from higher, therapeutic nicotinamide doses in patients with and without cardiac disease.

She pointed out that high vs low levels of nicotinamide supplementation can have different and even opposite effects on cellular processes, such as upregulating or inhibiting DNA repair enzymes. At high doses, nicotinamide is anti-inflammatory in skin.

Dr. Damian noted that two phase 3 studies (ONTRAC and ONTRANS) of nicotinamide 500 mg twice daily for skin cancer prevention did not find a significant increase in cardiovascular events compared to placebo over 12 months.

“Oral nicotinamide has been shown to reduce nonmelanoma skin cancer by about a quarter in patients with normal immunity and multiple skin cancers. The doses used for skin cancer prevention are well above daily dietary levels, and treatment needs to be ongoing for the protective effects to continue. Nicotinamide should not be recommended as a preventive agent for people who have not had multiple skin cancers but should be reserved for those with a heavy burden of skin cancers,” she commented.

“For now, it would be reasonable to balance the benefits of skin cancer reduction against possible effects on inflammatory markers in patients with cardiac risk factors, when helping patients to decide whether or not nicotinamide therapy is appropriate for them,” she added.

Meanwhile, Dr. Hazen said the most exciting part of this new research is the discovery of a new pathway that contributes to cardiovascular disease and potentially a new target to treat residual cardiovascular risk.

“I believe our results show that we should be measuring 4PY levels and individuals with high levels need to be extra vigilant about lowering their cardiovascular risk.”

The next step will be to confirm these results in other populations and then to develop a diagnostic test to identify people with a high 4PY level, he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study linking a niacin derivative to an increased risk for cardiovascular events has raised questions about the safety of this B vitamin, which is added to many food staples in the Western diet and taken in the form of supplements.

The findings, which were published in Nature Medicine, may also help explain why taking niacin, which lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and raises high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, did not lead to a reduction in cardiovascular events in major clinical trials.

But could this essential micronutrient really have an adverse effect on cardiovascular risk, and what are the implications for niacin intake?

Senior author of the new study Stanley Hazen, MD, believes some prudence on excessive niacin intake may be justified.

“I’m not suggesting we should completely avoid niacin — it is an essential nutrient, but our results suggest that too much may be harmful,” Dr. Hazen said.

Niacin supplements are also sold with claims of antiaging effects, arthritis relief, and boosting brain function, although none of these claims have been proven. And the related compound, nicotinamide, is recommended to prevent skin cancer in high-risk patients; however, a recent study questioned that guidance.

“I would say to the general public that avoiding supplements containing niacin or related compounds could be a sensible approach at present, while these findings are investigated further.”

Other experts are unsure if such action is justified on the basis of this single study.
 

Residual Cardiovascular Risk

Dr. Hazen, who is chair of the Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Sciences, at the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, explained to this news organization that they did not set out to study niacin.

“It began as a study to look for novel pathways involved in residual cardiovascular disease risk — the risk for cardiovascular events after adjusting for traditional risk factors such as cholesterol, blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The researchers began looking for compounds in plasma that predicted future adverse cardiovascular events in individuals undergoing elective diagnostic cardiac evaluation. Two of the leading candidates identified were niacin derivatives — 2PY and 4PY — that are only formed in the presence of excess niacin.

They then developed assays to measure 2PY and 4PY and conducted further studies in two validation cohorts — 2331 US individuals and a European cohort of 832 individuals. In both cohorts, elevated plasma levels of 2PY and 4PY predicted future adverse cardiovascular events, with a doubling in cardiovascular risk seen in those with levels in the highest vs the lowest quartile.

To move beyond these observational studies and to explore a potentially causal relationship, Dr. Hazen’s team went on to perform genome-wide association studies and found that genetic variants that tracked with higher levels of 4PY also linked to levels of the inflammatory marker, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1).

And in cell culture and animal studies, they found that 4PY was a driver of inflammation, upregulating VCAM-1 and eliciting vascular inflammation responses.

“So, we have shown in several different ways that the niacin derivative, 4PY, is linked to increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Hazen commented.
 

Significant Health Implications?

Dr. Hazen believed these findings could have significant health implications.

He noted that Western populations have been consuming large amounts of niacin ever since World War 2 when we began to fortify many foods with essential vitamins to avoid diseases caused by deficiencies. Niacin was added to foods to prevent pellagra — a disease characterized by inflamed skin, diarrhea, and dementia, that was often fatal.

“While we may have eliminated pellagra, have we, as a consequence, increased the prevalence of cardiovascular disease many years later?” Dr. Hazen asked.

This may be a clue to why niacin does not lower cardiovascular risk as much as would be expected from the degree of cholesterol lowering it brings about. “This is the niacin paradox and has led to the thought that there could be some kind of adverse effect that niacin is promoting. I think we may have found something that contributes to the niacin paradox,” he said.

However, the niacin pathway is complicated. Niacin is the major source of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), an integral molecule that allows cells to create energy. “Because it is so important, our bodies are designed to salvage and retain NADs, but once storage capacity is exceeded, then these 4PY and 2PY derivatives are generated,” Dr. Hazen explained. “But you have to really eat a lot of niacin-rich foods for this to happen.”

He is not claiming that niacin causes cardiovascular disease. “It is 4PY that appears to be the driver of vascular inflammation. And 4PY is a breakdown product of niacin. But there is more than one pathway that could lead to 4PY generation. There is a whole interconnecting network of compounds that interchange with each other — known as the niacin pool — any one or more of these compounds can be ingested and raise pool levels and ultimately 4PY levels. However, by far and away, niacin is one of the major sources,” Dr. Hazen commented.
 

Are High-Protein Diets Also Implicated?

Other sources of NADs include tryptophan, present in protein. And one of the genetic variants linked to changes in 4PY levels is connected to how dietary protein is directed into the niacin pool, raising the possibility that a high-protein diet may also raise cardiovascular risk in some people, Dr. Hazen noted.

Dr. Hazen estimated that about 3% of the niacin pool in a normal diet comes from protein intake, but that the percentage could increase substantially in very high–protein diets.

“Our data support the concept that if we lower our 4PY level long-term, then that would result in a reduction in cardiovascular disease. But this is still just a hypothesis. If we lower niacin intake, we will lower 4PY,” Dr. Hazen stated.

He said that this research is at too early a stage to give firm recommendations in what this means for the consumer.

“Based on these findings, I would advise people to avoid taking niacin or nicotinic acid or nicotinamide supplements and to eat a sensible balanced diet — maybe not to overdo the high protein–type diets. That’s all we can really say at the moment.”

Noting that niacin can also be one of the major components in energy drinks, he suggested it may be prudent to limit consumption of these products.
 

What Is the Optimum Niacin Intake?

Dr. Hazen noted that the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for niacin is well known — between 14 and 18 mg, but he said the average American ingests four times that amount, and some people have substantially higher intakes — up to 50 times the RDA if taking supplements.

While food fortification with niacin may have been useful in the past, Dr. Hazen questioned whether it should still be mandated.

“In the US, you cannot buy flour or cereal or rice that is not fortified. And if you look closely, some products have much higher levels than those that are mandated. The food companies advertise this as a benefit, but there is no good data in support of that. What if several decades of eating excessive amounts of niacin has led to an increase in cardiovascular disease?”

He does not propose stopping all niacin fortification, “but maybe, we could have the choice of selecting an unfortified option,” he said.
 

Causal Link Not Proven

Commenting for this news organization, John Guyton, MD, Professor Emeritus of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, who has been involved in niacin research for many years, said the Nature Medicine study showed “interesting and important results,” but they do not at this point prove a causal link between niacin intake and risk for cardiovascular disease.

“These findings need to be investigated further, and more studies are certainly justified, but I don’t think that this study alone makes an adequate case for restricting niacin intake, or thinking about stopping niacin fortification of foodstuffs,” Dr. Guyton said.

Noting that niacin is present in large quantities in many fast foods, he suggested the researchers may have just picked up the consequences of eating an unhealthy diet.

“If you look at foods that contain high quantities of niacin, red meat is at the top of the list. And if you think of a hamburger, niacin is present in relatively large quantities both the burger and the bun. So, these findings may just be a reflection of an overall unhealthy diet,” he commented.

Dr. Guyton also pointed out that major clinical trials with niacin have shown mixed results, and its effect on cardiovascular risk is still not completely understood. While the HPS2-THRIVE and AIM-HIGH trials did not show benefits in reducing cardiovascular events, an earlier study, the Coronary Drug Project in which the agent was given with food, did show some positive effects with substantial reductions in myocardial infarction and stroke, and there was the suggestion of a reduction in long-term mortality in the niacin group several years after the trial had ended.
 

Nicotinamide in Skin Cancer Prevention

What about the use of nicotinamide in skin cancer prevention?

Addressing this question, Kristin Bibee, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, pointed out that nicotinamide, although closely related to niacin, may have different effects. “This study does not specifically address nicotinamide supplementation and 4PY levels,” she said.

Diona Damian, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia, told this news organization that it was hard to extrapolate these findings on basal levels of niacin in a cardiac cohort to the administration of supra-physiological doses of nicotinamide for skin cancer prevention.

There may be different effects of supplemental niacin compared to nicotinamide, which lacks the vasodilatory effects seen with niacin, Dr. Damian said, adding that it would be interesting to see the results from higher, therapeutic nicotinamide doses in patients with and without cardiac disease.

She pointed out that high vs low levels of nicotinamide supplementation can have different and even opposite effects on cellular processes, such as upregulating or inhibiting DNA repair enzymes. At high doses, nicotinamide is anti-inflammatory in skin.

Dr. Damian noted that two phase 3 studies (ONTRAC and ONTRANS) of nicotinamide 500 mg twice daily for skin cancer prevention did not find a significant increase in cardiovascular events compared to placebo over 12 months.

“Oral nicotinamide has been shown to reduce nonmelanoma skin cancer by about a quarter in patients with normal immunity and multiple skin cancers. The doses used for skin cancer prevention are well above daily dietary levels, and treatment needs to be ongoing for the protective effects to continue. Nicotinamide should not be recommended as a preventive agent for people who have not had multiple skin cancers but should be reserved for those with a heavy burden of skin cancers,” she commented.

“For now, it would be reasonable to balance the benefits of skin cancer reduction against possible effects on inflammatory markers in patients with cardiac risk factors, when helping patients to decide whether or not nicotinamide therapy is appropriate for them,” she added.

Meanwhile, Dr. Hazen said the most exciting part of this new research is the discovery of a new pathway that contributes to cardiovascular disease and potentially a new target to treat residual cardiovascular risk.

“I believe our results show that we should be measuring 4PY levels and individuals with high levels need to be extra vigilant about lowering their cardiovascular risk.”

The next step will be to confirm these results in other populations and then to develop a diagnostic test to identify people with a high 4PY level, he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

This story was translated from Medscape France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

This story was translated from Medscape France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

This story was translated from Medscape France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted treatments, including antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapy agents, are now standard of care for breast cancer, but there are limited data on the safety of combining these newer agents alongside radiotherapy.

One reason is studies of new drugs typically exclude concurrent radiotherapy, said Kathy Miller, MD, a contributor to this news organization and professor of oncology and medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

If trials evaluating new targeted therapies included concurrent radiotherapy, it would be challenging to identify whether toxicities came from the drug itself, the radiation, or the combination, Dr. Miller explained.

Given the limited evidence, “we tend to be cautious and conservative” and not combine therapies that “we don’t know are safe or appropriate for patients,” said Chirag Shah, MD, director of breast radiology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Below is a guide to what we do and don’t know about combining radiotherapy and systemic treatments in breast cancer.

1. Immunotherapy plus radiotherapy likely safe but evidence is limited

Safety data on combining immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy in breast cancer are limited because concurrent radiotherapy has typically been excluded in pivotal trials.

The 2020 KEYNOTE-522 trial did provide a rare look at concurrent radiotherapy and immunotherapy in early triple-negative breast cancer. The analysis found “no safety concerns” with concurrent radiotherapy and pembrolizumab, lead investigator Peter Schmid, MD, of Queen Mary University of London, England, told this news organization.

Research on other solid tumor types also suggests that radiotherapy “can be considered safe” alongside immunotherapy, the authors of a recent ESTRO consensus said.

Despite evidence indicating radiotherapy alongside immunotherapy can be safe in patients with breast cancer, “certain aspects, such as patient selection, total dose, and dose per fraction, remain open for debate to achieve the best therapeutic outcomes,” the ESTRO experts cautioned.

2. CDK4/6 inhibitors may be offered with radiotherapy in some settings, not others

CDK4/6 inhibitors are now standard of care for first- or second-line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer.

“Unfortunately, we found no information regarding concurrent radiotherapy in the adjuvant setting” in pivotal trials for palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib, the ESTRO authors said. In the pivotal trials for palbociclib and abemaciclib, patients had to discontinue immunotherapy before initiating radiotherapy, and in the trial for ribociclib, palliative radiotherapy was allowed for relieving bone pain only.

However, in 2023, a team of experts from 12 countries attempted to piece together the available evidence, publishing a meta-analysis of 11 retrospective studies on the safety of CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic disease.

Although most of these studies had small patient populations, the analysis revealed that CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer led to a similar side-effect profile to that observed in trials of the inhibitors given sequentially with adjuvant radiotherapy.

“These findings suggest that the simultaneous administration of CDK4/6 inhibitors and radiotherapy is generally well tolerated,” the ESTRO authors concluded but added that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy should be investigated more in the adjuvant locoregional, whole brain, and intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy settings.

The expert panel did note, however, that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy “could be offered” during palliative and ablative extracranial radiotherapy.

3. Only offer poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors plus radiotherapy in clinical trial setting

PARP inhibitors olaparib (Lynparza) and talazoprib (Talzenna) are standard of care in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Olaparib is also indicated for high-risk early breast cancer following neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

But data on combining PARP inhibitors with radiotherapy in breast cancer also remain limited.

One ongoing phase 2 trial, comparing olaparib plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone in 300 people with inflammatory breast cancer, is aiming to tease out the safety of the combination and whether it improves local control in patients with aggressive disease.

“The desire is to explore the exciting possibility that low doses of PARP inhibition may radiosensitize tumor cells more than normal tissues,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, who is leading the study.

Because of potential good or bad interactions between new systemic therapies and radiotherapy, “intentional trial design” is important, Dr. Jagsi said, so we “know the best way to combine treatments in practice to optimize outcomes.”

But given the evidence to date, the ESTRO experts advised waiting until “further research provides more comprehensive safety and efficacy data” in the primary, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. The experts also advised not offering PARP inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy to treat advanced breast cancer outside of clinical trials.

4. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors (PI3K) inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, and newer targeted agents should not be offered concurrently with radiotherapy

Clinical trial data on the safety of combining PI3K and mTOR inhibitors with radiation are thin, especially in advanced breast cancer. Typically, radiotherapy within 4 weeks before randomization, or 2 weeks for palliative radiation, was excluded in pivotal trials.

For this reason, the ESTRO team recommended that concurrent radiation with either PI3K inhibitors or mTOR inhibitors “should not be offered.”

ESTRO also cautioned against providing radiation concurrently with newer anti-HER2 tyrosine-kinase drugs, such as neratinib or tucatinib, or newer antibody-drug conjugates such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, until more data emerge on the safety of these combinations.

5. Combining older HER2-targeted drugs and radiotherapy generally safe

The ESTRO authors agreed that older anti-HER2 drugs trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and lapatinib (Tykerb) can be safely used concurrently with locoregional radiotherapy as well.

One of the biggest concerns in the field is how to combine radiation with systemic therapies in the setting of brain metastases, and the data on these older anti-HER2 drugs are relatively clear that it’s safe, Dr. Miller said.

For instance, in a 2019 study of 84 patients with 487 brain metastases, stereotactic radiosurgery given alongside lapatinib led to significantly higher rates of complete responses than stereotactic radiosurgery alone (35% vs 11%) with no increased risk for radiation necrosis.

The ESTRO team agreed, noting that the latest evidence supports the use of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, or lapatinib alongside radiotherapy for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

As for older antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) plus radiotherapy “might be considered” during adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy for breast cancer but should not be offered for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy, the ESTRO team said.

Dr. Jagsi declared the following conflicts in a recent 2024 publication: Stock options for advisory board role in Equity Quotient; grants or contracts from Genentech; and expert witness for Kleinbard, LLC, and Hawks Quindel Law. In the Keynote-522 trial publication Dr. Schmid declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eisai, Hoffmann-La Roche, Genetech, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Shah reported consulting for Impedimed, Videra Surgical, and PreludeDX.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted treatments, including antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapy agents, are now standard of care for breast cancer, but there are limited data on the safety of combining these newer agents alongside radiotherapy.

One reason is studies of new drugs typically exclude concurrent radiotherapy, said Kathy Miller, MD, a contributor to this news organization and professor of oncology and medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

If trials evaluating new targeted therapies included concurrent radiotherapy, it would be challenging to identify whether toxicities came from the drug itself, the radiation, or the combination, Dr. Miller explained.

Given the limited evidence, “we tend to be cautious and conservative” and not combine therapies that “we don’t know are safe or appropriate for patients,” said Chirag Shah, MD, director of breast radiology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Below is a guide to what we do and don’t know about combining radiotherapy and systemic treatments in breast cancer.

1. Immunotherapy plus radiotherapy likely safe but evidence is limited

Safety data on combining immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy in breast cancer are limited because concurrent radiotherapy has typically been excluded in pivotal trials.

The 2020 KEYNOTE-522 trial did provide a rare look at concurrent radiotherapy and immunotherapy in early triple-negative breast cancer. The analysis found “no safety concerns” with concurrent radiotherapy and pembrolizumab, lead investigator Peter Schmid, MD, of Queen Mary University of London, England, told this news organization.

Research on other solid tumor types also suggests that radiotherapy “can be considered safe” alongside immunotherapy, the authors of a recent ESTRO consensus said.

Despite evidence indicating radiotherapy alongside immunotherapy can be safe in patients with breast cancer, “certain aspects, such as patient selection, total dose, and dose per fraction, remain open for debate to achieve the best therapeutic outcomes,” the ESTRO experts cautioned.

2. CDK4/6 inhibitors may be offered with radiotherapy in some settings, not others

CDK4/6 inhibitors are now standard of care for first- or second-line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer.

“Unfortunately, we found no information regarding concurrent radiotherapy in the adjuvant setting” in pivotal trials for palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib, the ESTRO authors said. In the pivotal trials for palbociclib and abemaciclib, patients had to discontinue immunotherapy before initiating radiotherapy, and in the trial for ribociclib, palliative radiotherapy was allowed for relieving bone pain only.

However, in 2023, a team of experts from 12 countries attempted to piece together the available evidence, publishing a meta-analysis of 11 retrospective studies on the safety of CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic disease.

Although most of these studies had small patient populations, the analysis revealed that CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer led to a similar side-effect profile to that observed in trials of the inhibitors given sequentially with adjuvant radiotherapy.

“These findings suggest that the simultaneous administration of CDK4/6 inhibitors and radiotherapy is generally well tolerated,” the ESTRO authors concluded but added that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy should be investigated more in the adjuvant locoregional, whole brain, and intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy settings.

The expert panel did note, however, that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy “could be offered” during palliative and ablative extracranial radiotherapy.

3. Only offer poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors plus radiotherapy in clinical trial setting

PARP inhibitors olaparib (Lynparza) and talazoprib (Talzenna) are standard of care in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Olaparib is also indicated for high-risk early breast cancer following neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

But data on combining PARP inhibitors with radiotherapy in breast cancer also remain limited.

One ongoing phase 2 trial, comparing olaparib plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone in 300 people with inflammatory breast cancer, is aiming to tease out the safety of the combination and whether it improves local control in patients with aggressive disease.

“The desire is to explore the exciting possibility that low doses of PARP inhibition may radiosensitize tumor cells more than normal tissues,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, who is leading the study.

Because of potential good or bad interactions between new systemic therapies and radiotherapy, “intentional trial design” is important, Dr. Jagsi said, so we “know the best way to combine treatments in practice to optimize outcomes.”

But given the evidence to date, the ESTRO experts advised waiting until “further research provides more comprehensive safety and efficacy data” in the primary, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. The experts also advised not offering PARP inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy to treat advanced breast cancer outside of clinical trials.

4. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors (PI3K) inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, and newer targeted agents should not be offered concurrently with radiotherapy

Clinical trial data on the safety of combining PI3K and mTOR inhibitors with radiation are thin, especially in advanced breast cancer. Typically, radiotherapy within 4 weeks before randomization, or 2 weeks for palliative radiation, was excluded in pivotal trials.

For this reason, the ESTRO team recommended that concurrent radiation with either PI3K inhibitors or mTOR inhibitors “should not be offered.”

ESTRO also cautioned against providing radiation concurrently with newer anti-HER2 tyrosine-kinase drugs, such as neratinib or tucatinib, or newer antibody-drug conjugates such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, until more data emerge on the safety of these combinations.

5. Combining older HER2-targeted drugs and radiotherapy generally safe

The ESTRO authors agreed that older anti-HER2 drugs trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and lapatinib (Tykerb) can be safely used concurrently with locoregional radiotherapy as well.

One of the biggest concerns in the field is how to combine radiation with systemic therapies in the setting of brain metastases, and the data on these older anti-HER2 drugs are relatively clear that it’s safe, Dr. Miller said.

For instance, in a 2019 study of 84 patients with 487 brain metastases, stereotactic radiosurgery given alongside lapatinib led to significantly higher rates of complete responses than stereotactic radiosurgery alone (35% vs 11%) with no increased risk for radiation necrosis.

The ESTRO team agreed, noting that the latest evidence supports the use of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, or lapatinib alongside radiotherapy for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

As for older antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) plus radiotherapy “might be considered” during adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy for breast cancer but should not be offered for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy, the ESTRO team said.

Dr. Jagsi declared the following conflicts in a recent 2024 publication: Stock options for advisory board role in Equity Quotient; grants or contracts from Genentech; and expert witness for Kleinbard, LLC, and Hawks Quindel Law. In the Keynote-522 trial publication Dr. Schmid declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eisai, Hoffmann-La Roche, Genetech, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Shah reported consulting for Impedimed, Videra Surgical, and PreludeDX.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted treatments, including antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapy agents, are now standard of care for breast cancer, but there are limited data on the safety of combining these newer agents alongside radiotherapy.

One reason is studies of new drugs typically exclude concurrent radiotherapy, said Kathy Miller, MD, a contributor to this news organization and professor of oncology and medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

If trials evaluating new targeted therapies included concurrent radiotherapy, it would be challenging to identify whether toxicities came from the drug itself, the radiation, or the combination, Dr. Miller explained.

Given the limited evidence, “we tend to be cautious and conservative” and not combine therapies that “we don’t know are safe or appropriate for patients,” said Chirag Shah, MD, director of breast radiology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Below is a guide to what we do and don’t know about combining radiotherapy and systemic treatments in breast cancer.

1. Immunotherapy plus radiotherapy likely safe but evidence is limited

Safety data on combining immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy in breast cancer are limited because concurrent radiotherapy has typically been excluded in pivotal trials.

The 2020 KEYNOTE-522 trial did provide a rare look at concurrent radiotherapy and immunotherapy in early triple-negative breast cancer. The analysis found “no safety concerns” with concurrent radiotherapy and pembrolizumab, lead investigator Peter Schmid, MD, of Queen Mary University of London, England, told this news organization.

Research on other solid tumor types also suggests that radiotherapy “can be considered safe” alongside immunotherapy, the authors of a recent ESTRO consensus said.

Despite evidence indicating radiotherapy alongside immunotherapy can be safe in patients with breast cancer, “certain aspects, such as patient selection, total dose, and dose per fraction, remain open for debate to achieve the best therapeutic outcomes,” the ESTRO experts cautioned.

2. CDK4/6 inhibitors may be offered with radiotherapy in some settings, not others

CDK4/6 inhibitors are now standard of care for first- or second-line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer.

“Unfortunately, we found no information regarding concurrent radiotherapy in the adjuvant setting” in pivotal trials for palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib, the ESTRO authors said. In the pivotal trials for palbociclib and abemaciclib, patients had to discontinue immunotherapy before initiating radiotherapy, and in the trial for ribociclib, palliative radiotherapy was allowed for relieving bone pain only.

However, in 2023, a team of experts from 12 countries attempted to piece together the available evidence, publishing a meta-analysis of 11 retrospective studies on the safety of CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic disease.

Although most of these studies had small patient populations, the analysis revealed that CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer led to a similar side-effect profile to that observed in trials of the inhibitors given sequentially with adjuvant radiotherapy.

“These findings suggest that the simultaneous administration of CDK4/6 inhibitors and radiotherapy is generally well tolerated,” the ESTRO authors concluded but added that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy should be investigated more in the adjuvant locoregional, whole brain, and intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy settings.

The expert panel did note, however, that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy “could be offered” during palliative and ablative extracranial radiotherapy.

3. Only offer poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors plus radiotherapy in clinical trial setting

PARP inhibitors olaparib (Lynparza) and talazoprib (Talzenna) are standard of care in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Olaparib is also indicated for high-risk early breast cancer following neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

But data on combining PARP inhibitors with radiotherapy in breast cancer also remain limited.

One ongoing phase 2 trial, comparing olaparib plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone in 300 people with inflammatory breast cancer, is aiming to tease out the safety of the combination and whether it improves local control in patients with aggressive disease.

“The desire is to explore the exciting possibility that low doses of PARP inhibition may radiosensitize tumor cells more than normal tissues,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, who is leading the study.

Because of potential good or bad interactions between new systemic therapies and radiotherapy, “intentional trial design” is important, Dr. Jagsi said, so we “know the best way to combine treatments in practice to optimize outcomes.”

But given the evidence to date, the ESTRO experts advised waiting until “further research provides more comprehensive safety and efficacy data” in the primary, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. The experts also advised not offering PARP inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy to treat advanced breast cancer outside of clinical trials.

4. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors (PI3K) inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, and newer targeted agents should not be offered concurrently with radiotherapy

Clinical trial data on the safety of combining PI3K and mTOR inhibitors with radiation are thin, especially in advanced breast cancer. Typically, radiotherapy within 4 weeks before randomization, or 2 weeks for palliative radiation, was excluded in pivotal trials.

For this reason, the ESTRO team recommended that concurrent radiation with either PI3K inhibitors or mTOR inhibitors “should not be offered.”

ESTRO also cautioned against providing radiation concurrently with newer anti-HER2 tyrosine-kinase drugs, such as neratinib or tucatinib, or newer antibody-drug conjugates such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, until more data emerge on the safety of these combinations.

5. Combining older HER2-targeted drugs and radiotherapy generally safe

The ESTRO authors agreed that older anti-HER2 drugs trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and lapatinib (Tykerb) can be safely used concurrently with locoregional radiotherapy as well.

One of the biggest concerns in the field is how to combine radiation with systemic therapies in the setting of brain metastases, and the data on these older anti-HER2 drugs are relatively clear that it’s safe, Dr. Miller said.

For instance, in a 2019 study of 84 patients with 487 brain metastases, stereotactic radiosurgery given alongside lapatinib led to significantly higher rates of complete responses than stereotactic radiosurgery alone (35% vs 11%) with no increased risk for radiation necrosis.

The ESTRO team agreed, noting that the latest evidence supports the use of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, or lapatinib alongside radiotherapy for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

As for older antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) plus radiotherapy “might be considered” during adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy for breast cancer but should not be offered for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy, the ESTRO team said.

Dr. Jagsi declared the following conflicts in a recent 2024 publication: Stock options for advisory board role in Equity Quotient; grants or contracts from Genentech; and expert witness for Kleinbard, LLC, and Hawks Quindel Law. In the Keynote-522 trial publication Dr. Schmid declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eisai, Hoffmann-La Roche, Genetech, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Shah reported consulting for Impedimed, Videra Surgical, and PreludeDX.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A wise medical precept is attributed to Theodore Woodward, MD (1914-2005): “When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.” Primary care pediatricians, however, often find themselves confronting so-called rare or uncommon diseases (“zebras”) in their offices. The pressing challenge is to know when to suspect them. How can one reconcile the need to dispel uncertainty with the use of diagnostic tests that can be costly and invasive? When can the desire to reassure parents mean delaying the detection of a potentially treatable condition?

“It may seem like wordplay, but it’s not uncommon to have a rare disease,” noted Alejandro Fainboim, MD, a specialist in rare diseases and head of the Multivalent Day Hospital at the Ricardo Gutiérrez Children’s Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. “And pediatricians are the first line of defense in detecting these types of pathologies. To make the diagnosis, we have to consider them. And to consider them, we must be knowledgeable. That’s why sometimes, ignorance slows down the diagnosis,” Dr. Fainboim made his remarks during an online seminar organized for the press on the eve of Rare Disease Day, which is commemorated on February 29th.

There are more than 8000 rare diseases, which generally are defined as those affecting fewer than five people per 10,000. But collectively, one in every 13 people has one of these diseases, and one in every two diagnosed patients is a child. Dr. Fainboim emphasized that most of these rare diseases are severe or very severe, hereditary, degenerative, and potentially fatal. And although they are pediatric pathologies, some manifest later in adulthood.

“The major problem we pediatricians face is that we’re handed a model from adults to solve pediatric diseases. So, signs and symptoms are described that we won’t find early on, but we have to anticipate and learn to decode some that are hidden,” he remarked.

Diagnostic delays and repeated consultations with various doctors before identification are common. Dr. Fainboim added that in industrialized countries, the diagnosis of these diseases takes between 5 and 10 years, and in low-income countries, up to 30 years or more. However, “this has improved significantly in recent years,” he said.
 

Unnoticed Signs

Specialists who treat patients with rare diseases often feel that there were obvious signs that went unnoticed and should have aroused the suspicion of the primary care physician. An example is paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, which affects 13-14 people per million inhabitants and can appear at any age, although the incidence is higher in the third decade of life.

“In my 50 years as a doctor, I’ve seen seven or eight patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria,” said Elsa Nucifora, MD, a hematologist at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Argentina. But “the diagnosis is so easy” that doctors could make it if they “were to think instead of acting automatically because they’re in a hurry,” she added. The diagnosis should be considered “every time anemia occurs in a young person, with certain characteristics, instead of giving them iron like everyone else and ‘we’ll see later’…the diagnosis is in two or three steps, so it’s not complicated.”

Similar situations occur with more than 1000 neuromuscular diseases involving mutations in more than 600 genes, including spinal muscular atrophy and muscular dystrophies.

“What are the most common manifestations? The hypotonic infant, the child who walks late, who falls frequently, who can’t climb stairs, who later may have difficulty breathing, who loses strength: These are presentations often unrecognized by doctors not in the specialty,” said Alberto Dubrovsky, MD, director of the Department of Neurology and the Neuromuscular Diseases Unit at the Favaloro University Neuroscience Institute in Buenos Aires, Argentina, during the seminar. “And considering that these diseases are diagnosed based on genetic mutations that need to be known to search for and request them, we are faced with a truly complex scenario that requires subspecialization.”

In a study recently published in the Argentine Archives of Pediatrics, Dr. Dubrovsky and colleagues interviewed 112 families of Argentine patients with molecular diagnoses of spinal muscular atrophy types I, II, and III and found that in 75%-85% of cases, the first signs of the disease (such as hypotonia, developmental delay, inability to achieve bipedal standing, or frequent falls) were recognized by parents. For type I, the most severe and early onset, in only 17.5% of cases did a neonatologist or pediatrician first notice something. Of the 72 patients with types II and III, where routine checks are less frequent than in the first months of life, only one doctor detected the first signs of the disease before parents or other relatives.

In the same study, the median time elapsed between the first sign and confirmed molecular diagnosis was 2, 10, and 31.5 months for types I, II, and III, respectively. The delay “is primarily due to the lack of clinical suspicion on the part of the intervening physician, who often dismisses or misinterprets the signs reported by parents, as reflected in the alternative diagnoses invoked,” the authors wrote.

“I don’t even ask for suspicion of a specific rare disease because that requires specialization. What I ask for is a kind of recognition or realization that something is happening and then request a consultation with the specialist to ensure proper care,” said Dr. Dubrovsky.

In another study conducted among 70 Argentine patients under age 13 years who were diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (one of the most severe forms of muscular dystrophy), 82% of the pediatricians who were initially consulted for any problem in motor agility that parents, other relatives, or teachers had detected dismissed the observation. “They’re told to wait, that it will mature a little more,” said Dr. Dubrovsky. This explains why the time to diagnosis in Argentina from the first signs is around 2 years. The delays are unfortunate because “today we have treatments capable of interfering with the disease’s progression slope, reducing its progression, or eventually stopping it,” he said.

“Do you mind that primary care pediatricians don’t notice or dismiss signs and symptoms strongly suggestive of one of these rare diseases? Does it frustrate you?” this news organization asked asked Dr. Dubrovsky. “Sometimes it does make me angry, but many times it’s understood that there can’t be highly trained specialists everywhere to realize and request diagnostic tests. One must consider the circumstances in each case, and that’s why we work in education,” he replied.
 

Rules and Experience

In an interview, Dr. Fainboim highlighted key factors that should prompt a pediatrician’s suspicion. One is common symptoms expressed in a more intense or complicated way or when many symptoms coexist in the same patient, even if each one separately is benign or not so severe.

Dr. Fainboim also recommended establishing a therapeutic alliance with parents. “We shouldn’t undermine what parents say, especially those who have other children and already know what normal child development is like. This is a very important milestone.

“We have to strengthen the suspicion clue, and for that, we rely on standards and our experience, which we keep refining. As Wilde said, experience is the sum of our mistakes. But there’s no universal answer. Not all families are the same. Not all diseases manifest in the same way. And unless there’s an imminent risk to life or function, one can wait and take the time to evaluate it. For example, if I have a child with slowed developmental milestones, what I have to do is teach how to stimulate them or send them for stimulation with another professional. And I observe the response to this initial basic treatment. If I see no response, the alarms start to grow louder,” said Dr. Fainboim.

Pablo Barvosa, MD, the principal physician in the outpatient area of the Juan P. Garrahan Pediatric Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a member of the Working Group on Genetics and Rare Diseases of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, told this news organization about other factors that should be considered for detecting these pathologies. Dr. Barvosa did not participate in the online seminar.

“Patients with rare diseases have common symptoms. What needs to be done is to prioritize those symptoms that behave abnormally, that have an unusual evolution compared with normal situations. For example, children who go into a coma after a fasting episode or after eating a certain food,” he said.

Dr. Barvosa also suggested considering when patients belong to certain communities where there is a lot of endogamy, due to the higher incidence of hereditary diseases. “Attention should be heightened when parents are cousins or relatives,” he pointed out.

“My view is that doctors should think more and better, be rational, sequential. If a disease is treated and resolved, but we find out that the child had 26 previous hospitalizations in the last 2 years, something is wrong. We have to look at the patient’s and family’s life histories. If a mother had 15 miscarriages, that’s a warning sign. We have to find a common thread. Be a sharp-witted pediatrician,” said Dr. Barvosa.

The suspicion and diagnosis of a rare disease can be devastating for families and painful for the professional, but even if there is no specific treatment, “something can always be done for patients,” he added.

And in certain circumstances, identifying a rare disease can reverse the ominous “stamp” of a wrong diagnosis. Dr. Barvosa commented on the case of a 7-year-old boy he attended at the hospital in 2014. The boy presented as quadriplegic, with no mobility in his limbs, and the parents were convinced he had that condition because he had fallen from the roof of the house. Although imaging techniques did not show a spinal injury, it was assumed to be a case of spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality. But something caught Dr. Barvosa’s attention: The boy had well-developed abdominal muscles, as if he were an athlete. So, he requested an electromyogram, and the muscle was found to be in permanent contraction.

“The patient didn’t have a spinal cord injury: He had Isaacs’ syndrome,” said Dr. Barvosa. The syndrome also is known as acquired neuromyotonia, a rare condition of hyperexcitability of peripheral nerves that activate muscle fibers. “That is treated with anticonvulsants, such as phenytoin. Within a week, he was walking again, and shortly after, he was playing soccer. When I presented the case at a conference, I cried with emotion. That’s why the pediatrician must be insistent, be like the gadfly that stings in the ear” when there are clinical elements that don’t quite fit into a clear diagnosis, he added.

In recent publications, Dr. Dubrovsky has reported receiving fees for consultations or research from PTC, Sarepta, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda Avexis, Novartis, Raffo, and Roche. Dr. Nucifora has received fees from Jansen LATAM. Dr. Fainboim reported receiving fees from Sanofi. Dr. Barvosa has declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The webinar was organized by Urban Comunicaciones.
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A wise medical precept is attributed to Theodore Woodward, MD (1914-2005): “When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.” Primary care pediatricians, however, often find themselves confronting so-called rare or uncommon diseases (“zebras”) in their offices. The pressing challenge is to know when to suspect them. How can one reconcile the need to dispel uncertainty with the use of diagnostic tests that can be costly and invasive? When can the desire to reassure parents mean delaying the detection of a potentially treatable condition?

“It may seem like wordplay, but it’s not uncommon to have a rare disease,” noted Alejandro Fainboim, MD, a specialist in rare diseases and head of the Multivalent Day Hospital at the Ricardo Gutiérrez Children’s Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. “And pediatricians are the first line of defense in detecting these types of pathologies. To make the diagnosis, we have to consider them. And to consider them, we must be knowledgeable. That’s why sometimes, ignorance slows down the diagnosis,” Dr. Fainboim made his remarks during an online seminar organized for the press on the eve of Rare Disease Day, which is commemorated on February 29th.

There are more than 8000 rare diseases, which generally are defined as those affecting fewer than five people per 10,000. But collectively, one in every 13 people has one of these diseases, and one in every two diagnosed patients is a child. Dr. Fainboim emphasized that most of these rare diseases are severe or very severe, hereditary, degenerative, and potentially fatal. And although they are pediatric pathologies, some manifest later in adulthood.

“The major problem we pediatricians face is that we’re handed a model from adults to solve pediatric diseases. So, signs and symptoms are described that we won’t find early on, but we have to anticipate and learn to decode some that are hidden,” he remarked.

Diagnostic delays and repeated consultations with various doctors before identification are common. Dr. Fainboim added that in industrialized countries, the diagnosis of these diseases takes between 5 and 10 years, and in low-income countries, up to 30 years or more. However, “this has improved significantly in recent years,” he said.
 

Unnoticed Signs

Specialists who treat patients with rare diseases often feel that there were obvious signs that went unnoticed and should have aroused the suspicion of the primary care physician. An example is paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, which affects 13-14 people per million inhabitants and can appear at any age, although the incidence is higher in the third decade of life.

“In my 50 years as a doctor, I’ve seen seven or eight patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria,” said Elsa Nucifora, MD, a hematologist at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Argentina. But “the diagnosis is so easy” that doctors could make it if they “were to think instead of acting automatically because they’re in a hurry,” she added. The diagnosis should be considered “every time anemia occurs in a young person, with certain characteristics, instead of giving them iron like everyone else and ‘we’ll see later’…the diagnosis is in two or three steps, so it’s not complicated.”

Similar situations occur with more than 1000 neuromuscular diseases involving mutations in more than 600 genes, including spinal muscular atrophy and muscular dystrophies.

“What are the most common manifestations? The hypotonic infant, the child who walks late, who falls frequently, who can’t climb stairs, who later may have difficulty breathing, who loses strength: These are presentations often unrecognized by doctors not in the specialty,” said Alberto Dubrovsky, MD, director of the Department of Neurology and the Neuromuscular Diseases Unit at the Favaloro University Neuroscience Institute in Buenos Aires, Argentina, during the seminar. “And considering that these diseases are diagnosed based on genetic mutations that need to be known to search for and request them, we are faced with a truly complex scenario that requires subspecialization.”

In a study recently published in the Argentine Archives of Pediatrics, Dr. Dubrovsky and colleagues interviewed 112 families of Argentine patients with molecular diagnoses of spinal muscular atrophy types I, II, and III and found that in 75%-85% of cases, the first signs of the disease (such as hypotonia, developmental delay, inability to achieve bipedal standing, or frequent falls) were recognized by parents. For type I, the most severe and early onset, in only 17.5% of cases did a neonatologist or pediatrician first notice something. Of the 72 patients with types II and III, where routine checks are less frequent than in the first months of life, only one doctor detected the first signs of the disease before parents or other relatives.

In the same study, the median time elapsed between the first sign and confirmed molecular diagnosis was 2, 10, and 31.5 months for types I, II, and III, respectively. The delay “is primarily due to the lack of clinical suspicion on the part of the intervening physician, who often dismisses or misinterprets the signs reported by parents, as reflected in the alternative diagnoses invoked,” the authors wrote.

“I don’t even ask for suspicion of a specific rare disease because that requires specialization. What I ask for is a kind of recognition or realization that something is happening and then request a consultation with the specialist to ensure proper care,” said Dr. Dubrovsky.

In another study conducted among 70 Argentine patients under age 13 years who were diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (one of the most severe forms of muscular dystrophy), 82% of the pediatricians who were initially consulted for any problem in motor agility that parents, other relatives, or teachers had detected dismissed the observation. “They’re told to wait, that it will mature a little more,” said Dr. Dubrovsky. This explains why the time to diagnosis in Argentina from the first signs is around 2 years. The delays are unfortunate because “today we have treatments capable of interfering with the disease’s progression slope, reducing its progression, or eventually stopping it,” he said.

“Do you mind that primary care pediatricians don’t notice or dismiss signs and symptoms strongly suggestive of one of these rare diseases? Does it frustrate you?” this news organization asked asked Dr. Dubrovsky. “Sometimes it does make me angry, but many times it’s understood that there can’t be highly trained specialists everywhere to realize and request diagnostic tests. One must consider the circumstances in each case, and that’s why we work in education,” he replied.
 

Rules and Experience

In an interview, Dr. Fainboim highlighted key factors that should prompt a pediatrician’s suspicion. One is common symptoms expressed in a more intense or complicated way or when many symptoms coexist in the same patient, even if each one separately is benign or not so severe.

Dr. Fainboim also recommended establishing a therapeutic alliance with parents. “We shouldn’t undermine what parents say, especially those who have other children and already know what normal child development is like. This is a very important milestone.

“We have to strengthen the suspicion clue, and for that, we rely on standards and our experience, which we keep refining. As Wilde said, experience is the sum of our mistakes. But there’s no universal answer. Not all families are the same. Not all diseases manifest in the same way. And unless there’s an imminent risk to life or function, one can wait and take the time to evaluate it. For example, if I have a child with slowed developmental milestones, what I have to do is teach how to stimulate them or send them for stimulation with another professional. And I observe the response to this initial basic treatment. If I see no response, the alarms start to grow louder,” said Dr. Fainboim.

Pablo Barvosa, MD, the principal physician in the outpatient area of the Juan P. Garrahan Pediatric Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a member of the Working Group on Genetics and Rare Diseases of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, told this news organization about other factors that should be considered for detecting these pathologies. Dr. Barvosa did not participate in the online seminar.

“Patients with rare diseases have common symptoms. What needs to be done is to prioritize those symptoms that behave abnormally, that have an unusual evolution compared with normal situations. For example, children who go into a coma after a fasting episode or after eating a certain food,” he said.

Dr. Barvosa also suggested considering when patients belong to certain communities where there is a lot of endogamy, due to the higher incidence of hereditary diseases. “Attention should be heightened when parents are cousins or relatives,” he pointed out.

“My view is that doctors should think more and better, be rational, sequential. If a disease is treated and resolved, but we find out that the child had 26 previous hospitalizations in the last 2 years, something is wrong. We have to look at the patient’s and family’s life histories. If a mother had 15 miscarriages, that’s a warning sign. We have to find a common thread. Be a sharp-witted pediatrician,” said Dr. Barvosa.

The suspicion and diagnosis of a rare disease can be devastating for families and painful for the professional, but even if there is no specific treatment, “something can always be done for patients,” he added.

And in certain circumstances, identifying a rare disease can reverse the ominous “stamp” of a wrong diagnosis. Dr. Barvosa commented on the case of a 7-year-old boy he attended at the hospital in 2014. The boy presented as quadriplegic, with no mobility in his limbs, and the parents were convinced he had that condition because he had fallen from the roof of the house. Although imaging techniques did not show a spinal injury, it was assumed to be a case of spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality. But something caught Dr. Barvosa’s attention: The boy had well-developed abdominal muscles, as if he were an athlete. So, he requested an electromyogram, and the muscle was found to be in permanent contraction.

“The patient didn’t have a spinal cord injury: He had Isaacs’ syndrome,” said Dr. Barvosa. The syndrome also is known as acquired neuromyotonia, a rare condition of hyperexcitability of peripheral nerves that activate muscle fibers. “That is treated with anticonvulsants, such as phenytoin. Within a week, he was walking again, and shortly after, he was playing soccer. When I presented the case at a conference, I cried with emotion. That’s why the pediatrician must be insistent, be like the gadfly that stings in the ear” when there are clinical elements that don’t quite fit into a clear diagnosis, he added.

In recent publications, Dr. Dubrovsky has reported receiving fees for consultations or research from PTC, Sarepta, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda Avexis, Novartis, Raffo, and Roche. Dr. Nucifora has received fees from Jansen LATAM. Dr. Fainboim reported receiving fees from Sanofi. Dr. Barvosa has declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The webinar was organized by Urban Comunicaciones.
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A wise medical precept is attributed to Theodore Woodward, MD (1914-2005): “When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.” Primary care pediatricians, however, often find themselves confronting so-called rare or uncommon diseases (“zebras”) in their offices. The pressing challenge is to know when to suspect them. How can one reconcile the need to dispel uncertainty with the use of diagnostic tests that can be costly and invasive? When can the desire to reassure parents mean delaying the detection of a potentially treatable condition?

“It may seem like wordplay, but it’s not uncommon to have a rare disease,” noted Alejandro Fainboim, MD, a specialist in rare diseases and head of the Multivalent Day Hospital at the Ricardo Gutiérrez Children’s Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. “And pediatricians are the first line of defense in detecting these types of pathologies. To make the diagnosis, we have to consider them. And to consider them, we must be knowledgeable. That’s why sometimes, ignorance slows down the diagnosis,” Dr. Fainboim made his remarks during an online seminar organized for the press on the eve of Rare Disease Day, which is commemorated on February 29th.

There are more than 8000 rare diseases, which generally are defined as those affecting fewer than five people per 10,000. But collectively, one in every 13 people has one of these diseases, and one in every two diagnosed patients is a child. Dr. Fainboim emphasized that most of these rare diseases are severe or very severe, hereditary, degenerative, and potentially fatal. And although they are pediatric pathologies, some manifest later in adulthood.

“The major problem we pediatricians face is that we’re handed a model from adults to solve pediatric diseases. So, signs and symptoms are described that we won’t find early on, but we have to anticipate and learn to decode some that are hidden,” he remarked.

Diagnostic delays and repeated consultations with various doctors before identification are common. Dr. Fainboim added that in industrialized countries, the diagnosis of these diseases takes between 5 and 10 years, and in low-income countries, up to 30 years or more. However, “this has improved significantly in recent years,” he said.
 

Unnoticed Signs

Specialists who treat patients with rare diseases often feel that there were obvious signs that went unnoticed and should have aroused the suspicion of the primary care physician. An example is paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, which affects 13-14 people per million inhabitants and can appear at any age, although the incidence is higher in the third decade of life.

“In my 50 years as a doctor, I’ve seen seven or eight patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria,” said Elsa Nucifora, MD, a hematologist at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Argentina. But “the diagnosis is so easy” that doctors could make it if they “were to think instead of acting automatically because they’re in a hurry,” she added. The diagnosis should be considered “every time anemia occurs in a young person, with certain characteristics, instead of giving them iron like everyone else and ‘we’ll see later’…the diagnosis is in two or three steps, so it’s not complicated.”

Similar situations occur with more than 1000 neuromuscular diseases involving mutations in more than 600 genes, including spinal muscular atrophy and muscular dystrophies.

“What are the most common manifestations? The hypotonic infant, the child who walks late, who falls frequently, who can’t climb stairs, who later may have difficulty breathing, who loses strength: These are presentations often unrecognized by doctors not in the specialty,” said Alberto Dubrovsky, MD, director of the Department of Neurology and the Neuromuscular Diseases Unit at the Favaloro University Neuroscience Institute in Buenos Aires, Argentina, during the seminar. “And considering that these diseases are diagnosed based on genetic mutations that need to be known to search for and request them, we are faced with a truly complex scenario that requires subspecialization.”

In a study recently published in the Argentine Archives of Pediatrics, Dr. Dubrovsky and colleagues interviewed 112 families of Argentine patients with molecular diagnoses of spinal muscular atrophy types I, II, and III and found that in 75%-85% of cases, the first signs of the disease (such as hypotonia, developmental delay, inability to achieve bipedal standing, or frequent falls) were recognized by parents. For type I, the most severe and early onset, in only 17.5% of cases did a neonatologist or pediatrician first notice something. Of the 72 patients with types II and III, where routine checks are less frequent than in the first months of life, only one doctor detected the first signs of the disease before parents or other relatives.

In the same study, the median time elapsed between the first sign and confirmed molecular diagnosis was 2, 10, and 31.5 months for types I, II, and III, respectively. The delay “is primarily due to the lack of clinical suspicion on the part of the intervening physician, who often dismisses or misinterprets the signs reported by parents, as reflected in the alternative diagnoses invoked,” the authors wrote.

“I don’t even ask for suspicion of a specific rare disease because that requires specialization. What I ask for is a kind of recognition or realization that something is happening and then request a consultation with the specialist to ensure proper care,” said Dr. Dubrovsky.

In another study conducted among 70 Argentine patients under age 13 years who were diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (one of the most severe forms of muscular dystrophy), 82% of the pediatricians who were initially consulted for any problem in motor agility that parents, other relatives, or teachers had detected dismissed the observation. “They’re told to wait, that it will mature a little more,” said Dr. Dubrovsky. This explains why the time to diagnosis in Argentina from the first signs is around 2 years. The delays are unfortunate because “today we have treatments capable of interfering with the disease’s progression slope, reducing its progression, or eventually stopping it,” he said.

“Do you mind that primary care pediatricians don’t notice or dismiss signs and symptoms strongly suggestive of one of these rare diseases? Does it frustrate you?” this news organization asked asked Dr. Dubrovsky. “Sometimes it does make me angry, but many times it’s understood that there can’t be highly trained specialists everywhere to realize and request diagnostic tests. One must consider the circumstances in each case, and that’s why we work in education,” he replied.
 

Rules and Experience

In an interview, Dr. Fainboim highlighted key factors that should prompt a pediatrician’s suspicion. One is common symptoms expressed in a more intense or complicated way or when many symptoms coexist in the same patient, even if each one separately is benign or not so severe.

Dr. Fainboim also recommended establishing a therapeutic alliance with parents. “We shouldn’t undermine what parents say, especially those who have other children and already know what normal child development is like. This is a very important milestone.

“We have to strengthen the suspicion clue, and for that, we rely on standards and our experience, which we keep refining. As Wilde said, experience is the sum of our mistakes. But there’s no universal answer. Not all families are the same. Not all diseases manifest in the same way. And unless there’s an imminent risk to life or function, one can wait and take the time to evaluate it. For example, if I have a child with slowed developmental milestones, what I have to do is teach how to stimulate them or send them for stimulation with another professional. And I observe the response to this initial basic treatment. If I see no response, the alarms start to grow louder,” said Dr. Fainboim.

Pablo Barvosa, MD, the principal physician in the outpatient area of the Juan P. Garrahan Pediatric Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a member of the Working Group on Genetics and Rare Diseases of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, told this news organization about other factors that should be considered for detecting these pathologies. Dr. Barvosa did not participate in the online seminar.

“Patients with rare diseases have common symptoms. What needs to be done is to prioritize those symptoms that behave abnormally, that have an unusual evolution compared with normal situations. For example, children who go into a coma after a fasting episode or after eating a certain food,” he said.

Dr. Barvosa also suggested considering when patients belong to certain communities where there is a lot of endogamy, due to the higher incidence of hereditary diseases. “Attention should be heightened when parents are cousins or relatives,” he pointed out.

“My view is that doctors should think more and better, be rational, sequential. If a disease is treated and resolved, but we find out that the child had 26 previous hospitalizations in the last 2 years, something is wrong. We have to look at the patient’s and family’s life histories. If a mother had 15 miscarriages, that’s a warning sign. We have to find a common thread. Be a sharp-witted pediatrician,” said Dr. Barvosa.

The suspicion and diagnosis of a rare disease can be devastating for families and painful for the professional, but even if there is no specific treatment, “something can always be done for patients,” he added.

And in certain circumstances, identifying a rare disease can reverse the ominous “stamp” of a wrong diagnosis. Dr. Barvosa commented on the case of a 7-year-old boy he attended at the hospital in 2014. The boy presented as quadriplegic, with no mobility in his limbs, and the parents were convinced he had that condition because he had fallen from the roof of the house. Although imaging techniques did not show a spinal injury, it was assumed to be a case of spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality. But something caught Dr. Barvosa’s attention: The boy had well-developed abdominal muscles, as if he were an athlete. So, he requested an electromyogram, and the muscle was found to be in permanent contraction.

“The patient didn’t have a spinal cord injury: He had Isaacs’ syndrome,” said Dr. Barvosa. The syndrome also is known as acquired neuromyotonia, a rare condition of hyperexcitability of peripheral nerves that activate muscle fibers. “That is treated with anticonvulsants, such as phenytoin. Within a week, he was walking again, and shortly after, he was playing soccer. When I presented the case at a conference, I cried with emotion. That’s why the pediatrician must be insistent, be like the gadfly that stings in the ear” when there are clinical elements that don’t quite fit into a clear diagnosis, he added.

In recent publications, Dr. Dubrovsky has reported receiving fees for consultations or research from PTC, Sarepta, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda Avexis, Novartis, Raffo, and Roche. Dr. Nucifora has received fees from Jansen LATAM. Dr. Fainboim reported receiving fees from Sanofi. Dr. Barvosa has declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The webinar was organized by Urban Comunicaciones.
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While the increased risk of cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome is well established by research, the authors of a new study delve deeper by examining metabolic syndrome trajectories.

The new research finds that adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer.

The conditions that make up metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

However, a single assessment of metabolic syndrome at one point in time is inadequate to show an association with cancer risk over time, they said. In the current study, the researchers used models to examine the association between trajectory patterns of metabolic syndrome over time and the risk of overall and specific cancer types. They also examined the impact of chronic inflammation concurrent with metabolic syndrome.
 

What We Know About Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2020 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

In addition, a 2022 study by some of the current study researchers of the same Chinese cohort focused on the role of inflammation in combination with metabolic syndrome on colorectal cancer specifically, and found an increased risk for cancer when both metabolic syndrome and inflammation were present.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.

“There is emerging evidence that even normal weight individuals who are metabolically unhealthy may be at an elevated cancer risk, and we need better metrics to define the underlying metabolic dysfunction in obesity,” Sheetal Hardikar, MBBS, PhD, MPH, an investigator at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, said in an interview.

Dr. Hardikar, who serves as assistant professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah, was not involved in the current study. She and her colleagues published a research paper on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2023 that showed an increased risk of obesity-related cancer.
 

What New Study Adds to Related Research

Previous studies have consistently reported an approximately 30% increased risk of cancer with metabolic syndrome, Dr. Hardikar said. “What is unique about this study is the examination of metabolic syndrome trajectories over four years, and not just the presence of metabolic syndrome at one point in time,” she said.

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years; the mean body mass index ranged from approximately 22 kg/m² in the low-stable group to approximately 28 kg/m² in the elevated-increasing group.

The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.

Using the International Diabetes Federation criteria was another limitation, because it prevented the assessment of cancer risk in normal weight individuals with metabolic dysfunction, Dr. Hardikar noted.
 

Does Metabolic Syndrome Cause Cancer?

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, noted in a statement on the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he continued.

“Current evidence based on this study and many other reports strongly suggests an increased risk for cancer associated with metabolic syndrome,” Dr. Hardikar said in an interview. The data serve as a reminder to clinicians to look beyond BMI as the only measure of obesity, and to consider metabolic factors together to identify individuals at increased risk for cancer, she said.

“We must continue to educate patients about obesity and all the chronic conditions it may lead to, but we cannot ignore this emerging phenotype of being of normal weight but metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Hardikar emphasized.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

Looking ahead, “we need well-designed interventions to test causality for metabolic syndrome and cancer risk, though the evidence from the observational studies is very strong,” Dr. Hardikar said.

In addition, a consensus is needed to better define metabolic dysfunction,and to explore cancer risk in normal weight but metabolically unhealthy individuals, she said.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers and Dr. Hardikar had no financial conflicts to disclose.

While the increased risk of cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome is well established by research, the authors of a new study delve deeper by examining metabolic syndrome trajectories.

The new research finds that adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer.

The conditions that make up metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

However, a single assessment of metabolic syndrome at one point in time is inadequate to show an association with cancer risk over time, they said. In the current study, the researchers used models to examine the association between trajectory patterns of metabolic syndrome over time and the risk of overall and specific cancer types. They also examined the impact of chronic inflammation concurrent with metabolic syndrome.
 

What We Know About Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2020 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

In addition, a 2022 study by some of the current study researchers of the same Chinese cohort focused on the role of inflammation in combination with metabolic syndrome on colorectal cancer specifically, and found an increased risk for cancer when both metabolic syndrome and inflammation were present.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.

“There is emerging evidence that even normal weight individuals who are metabolically unhealthy may be at an elevated cancer risk, and we need better metrics to define the underlying metabolic dysfunction in obesity,” Sheetal Hardikar, MBBS, PhD, MPH, an investigator at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, said in an interview.

Dr. Hardikar, who serves as assistant professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah, was not involved in the current study. She and her colleagues published a research paper on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2023 that showed an increased risk of obesity-related cancer.
 

What New Study Adds to Related Research

Previous studies have consistently reported an approximately 30% increased risk of cancer with metabolic syndrome, Dr. Hardikar said. “What is unique about this study is the examination of metabolic syndrome trajectories over four years, and not just the presence of metabolic syndrome at one point in time,” she said.

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years; the mean body mass index ranged from approximately 22 kg/m² in the low-stable group to approximately 28 kg/m² in the elevated-increasing group.

The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.

Using the International Diabetes Federation criteria was another limitation, because it prevented the assessment of cancer risk in normal weight individuals with metabolic dysfunction, Dr. Hardikar noted.
 

Does Metabolic Syndrome Cause Cancer?

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, noted in a statement on the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he continued.

“Current evidence based on this study and many other reports strongly suggests an increased risk for cancer associated with metabolic syndrome,” Dr. Hardikar said in an interview. The data serve as a reminder to clinicians to look beyond BMI as the only measure of obesity, and to consider metabolic factors together to identify individuals at increased risk for cancer, she said.

“We must continue to educate patients about obesity and all the chronic conditions it may lead to, but we cannot ignore this emerging phenotype of being of normal weight but metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Hardikar emphasized.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

Looking ahead, “we need well-designed interventions to test causality for metabolic syndrome and cancer risk, though the evidence from the observational studies is very strong,” Dr. Hardikar said.

In addition, a consensus is needed to better define metabolic dysfunction,and to explore cancer risk in normal weight but metabolically unhealthy individuals, she said.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers and Dr. Hardikar had no financial conflicts to disclose.

While the increased risk of cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome is well established by research, the authors of a new study delve deeper by examining metabolic syndrome trajectories.

The new research finds that adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer.

The conditions that make up metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

However, a single assessment of metabolic syndrome at one point in time is inadequate to show an association with cancer risk over time, they said. In the current study, the researchers used models to examine the association between trajectory patterns of metabolic syndrome over time and the risk of overall and specific cancer types. They also examined the impact of chronic inflammation concurrent with metabolic syndrome.
 

What We Know About Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2020 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

In addition, a 2022 study by some of the current study researchers of the same Chinese cohort focused on the role of inflammation in combination with metabolic syndrome on colorectal cancer specifically, and found an increased risk for cancer when both metabolic syndrome and inflammation were present.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.

“There is emerging evidence that even normal weight individuals who are metabolically unhealthy may be at an elevated cancer risk, and we need better metrics to define the underlying metabolic dysfunction in obesity,” Sheetal Hardikar, MBBS, PhD, MPH, an investigator at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, said in an interview.

Dr. Hardikar, who serves as assistant professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah, was not involved in the current study. She and her colleagues published a research paper on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2023 that showed an increased risk of obesity-related cancer.
 

What New Study Adds to Related Research

Previous studies have consistently reported an approximately 30% increased risk of cancer with metabolic syndrome, Dr. Hardikar said. “What is unique about this study is the examination of metabolic syndrome trajectories over four years, and not just the presence of metabolic syndrome at one point in time,” she said.

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years; the mean body mass index ranged from approximately 22 kg/m² in the low-stable group to approximately 28 kg/m² in the elevated-increasing group.

The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.

Using the International Diabetes Federation criteria was another limitation, because it prevented the assessment of cancer risk in normal weight individuals with metabolic dysfunction, Dr. Hardikar noted.
 

Does Metabolic Syndrome Cause Cancer?

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, noted in a statement on the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he continued.

“Current evidence based on this study and many other reports strongly suggests an increased risk for cancer associated with metabolic syndrome,” Dr. Hardikar said in an interview. The data serve as a reminder to clinicians to look beyond BMI as the only measure of obesity, and to consider metabolic factors together to identify individuals at increased risk for cancer, she said.

“We must continue to educate patients about obesity and all the chronic conditions it may lead to, but we cannot ignore this emerging phenotype of being of normal weight but metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Hardikar emphasized.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

Looking ahead, “we need well-designed interventions to test causality for metabolic syndrome and cancer risk, though the evidence from the observational studies is very strong,” Dr. Hardikar said.

In addition, a consensus is needed to better define metabolic dysfunction,and to explore cancer risk in normal weight but metabolically unhealthy individuals, she said.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers and Dr. Hardikar had no financial conflicts to disclose.