Feature

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Several clinical trials in leukemia and lymphoma have started enrolling recently. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from taking part?

Hematological malignancy scheduled for a human leukocyte antigen–mismatched unrelated donor transplant. Adult patients in this situation who are younger than 66 years may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 2 study run by the Center for International Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Research.

The purpose of the study is to test whether cyclophosphamide, which is given to prevent a dreaded complication of stem cell transplantation called graft-versus-host disease, can be safely reduced without increasing infection or reducing protection. All participants will receive cyclophosphamide on days 3 and 4 post transplant. One group will receive a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (25 mg/kg per dose), and the other will be given a usual dose (37.5 mg/kg).

Sites in Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington started recruiting for 190 participants in December 2023. Study centers in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin are also planned. Infection-free survival is the primary endpoint, and overall survival is a secondary measure. Quality of life (QoL) is not recorded. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Adults who are newly diagnosed with this type of cancer and have active disease may wish to consider a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an experimental Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, nemtabrutinib (from Merck Sharp & Dohme), against standard-of-care BTK inhibitors ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and acalabrutinib (Calquence).

BTK inhibitors target B-cell proliferation in B-cell cancers such as CLL/SLL and allow for chemotherapy-free treatment of some hematological malignancies. In this study, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or another reason for discontinuation occurs, participants will take daily oral nemtabrutinib, ibrutinib, or acalabrutinib.

The study opened in December 2023 in Pennsylvania, Washington, Taiwan, Israel, and the United Kingdom seeking 1200 participants. The primary outcomes are objective response rate and progression-free survival. Overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Relapsed or refractory leukemia with a KMT2A-gene rearrangement (KMT2A-r). Children aged 1 month to younger than 6 years with this diagnosis may be able to join an open-label, nonrandomized, Children’s Oncology Group phase 2 study to determine the most tolerable and/or effective dose of an experimental oral drug called revumenib when added to chemotherapy.

KMT2A-gene alterations are associated with a poor prognosis in leukemia. These alterations cause blood cells to dedifferentiate and start proliferating uncontrollably as leukemia cells. The expression of the damaged KMT2A gene relies on a protein called menin. Revumenib, from Syndax Pharmaceuticals, blocks menin and prevents expression of KMT2A.

Children in the study will receive two different regimens of revumenib in combination with chemotherapy for up to a year, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and will then be followed for up to 5 years. Trial centers in 12 US states opened their doors in January 2024 looking for 78 participants. Toxicities and minimal residual disease are the primary outcomes; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously untreated follicular lymphoma or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Adults with one of these types of lymphoma may be eligible for one of three open-label, randomized, phase 3 trials testing odronextamab (from Regeneron). This bispecific antibody is designed to ‘lock together’ CD20 on cancer cells with CD3-expressing cancer-killing T cells. It has shown anti-lymphoma activity in heavily pretreated patients.

Late in 2023, three phase 3 trials turned the spotlight on treatment-naive patients and started recruiting 2115 participants to assess odronextamab in this setting. The trial OLYMPIA-1 will compare odronextamab with standard-of-care rituximab (Rituxan) plus chemotherapy in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-2 will test the drug in combination with chemotherapy, also in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-3 will evaluate odronextamab plus chemotherapy against rituximab and chemotherapy in people with large B-cell lymphoma.

All study drugs, including odronextamab, will be administered by intravenous infusion, and participants will be followed for up to 5 years. Research centers across eight US states and Australia, Czechia, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and Thailand are currently accepting participants for the three trials. The primary outcomes are various measures of toxicity and complete response at 30 months in the follicular lymphoma studies and toxicity and progression-free survival in large B-cell lymphoma. All three trials are measuring overall survival and QoL as secondary endpoints.

Previously untreated stage II, III, or IV follicular lymphoma. Adults with this type of cancer may be eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing whether an experimental therapy called epcoritamab (from AbbVie) improves disease response and is tolerable when added to standard therapy. For up to 120 weeks, one group of participants will receive a combination of intravenous rituximab and oral lenalidomide (Revlimid), while a second group will also receive subcutaneous injections of epcoritamab. Some participants may be offered investigators’ choice of chemotherapy as well.

Sites across Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and Montana started welcoming their 900 participants in February 2024. The primary outcome is complete response at 30 months. Overall survival and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Adults facing one of these clinical scenarios can join an Academic and Community Cancer Research United open label, phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of combining tafasitamab (Monjuvi), lenalidomide, and venetoclax (Venclexta) for such patients.

Frontline therapy does not cure mantle cell lymphoma, and continued relapses are common. In this situation, treatments can include acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, stem cell transplantation, venetoclax, lenalidomide, and rituximab.

In this study, participants will take venetoclax and lenalidomide daily and receive intravenous tafasitamab every 2 weeks after an initial ramp-up period as per clinic standards. Participants will be followed for 5 years after entering the trial. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, began recruiting the planned 100 trial participants in January 2024. The primary outcome is objective response rate; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several clinical trials in leukemia and lymphoma have started enrolling recently. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from taking part?

Hematological malignancy scheduled for a human leukocyte antigen–mismatched unrelated donor transplant. Adult patients in this situation who are younger than 66 years may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 2 study run by the Center for International Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Research.

The purpose of the study is to test whether cyclophosphamide, which is given to prevent a dreaded complication of stem cell transplantation called graft-versus-host disease, can be safely reduced without increasing infection or reducing protection. All participants will receive cyclophosphamide on days 3 and 4 post transplant. One group will receive a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (25 mg/kg per dose), and the other will be given a usual dose (37.5 mg/kg).

Sites in Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington started recruiting for 190 participants in December 2023. Study centers in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin are also planned. Infection-free survival is the primary endpoint, and overall survival is a secondary measure. Quality of life (QoL) is not recorded. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Adults who are newly diagnosed with this type of cancer and have active disease may wish to consider a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an experimental Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, nemtabrutinib (from Merck Sharp & Dohme), against standard-of-care BTK inhibitors ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and acalabrutinib (Calquence).

BTK inhibitors target B-cell proliferation in B-cell cancers such as CLL/SLL and allow for chemotherapy-free treatment of some hematological malignancies. In this study, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or another reason for discontinuation occurs, participants will take daily oral nemtabrutinib, ibrutinib, or acalabrutinib.

The study opened in December 2023 in Pennsylvania, Washington, Taiwan, Israel, and the United Kingdom seeking 1200 participants. The primary outcomes are objective response rate and progression-free survival. Overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Relapsed or refractory leukemia with a KMT2A-gene rearrangement (KMT2A-r). Children aged 1 month to younger than 6 years with this diagnosis may be able to join an open-label, nonrandomized, Children’s Oncology Group phase 2 study to determine the most tolerable and/or effective dose of an experimental oral drug called revumenib when added to chemotherapy.

KMT2A-gene alterations are associated with a poor prognosis in leukemia. These alterations cause blood cells to dedifferentiate and start proliferating uncontrollably as leukemia cells. The expression of the damaged KMT2A gene relies on a protein called menin. Revumenib, from Syndax Pharmaceuticals, blocks menin and prevents expression of KMT2A.

Children in the study will receive two different regimens of revumenib in combination with chemotherapy for up to a year, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and will then be followed for up to 5 years. Trial centers in 12 US states opened their doors in January 2024 looking for 78 participants. Toxicities and minimal residual disease are the primary outcomes; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously untreated follicular lymphoma or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Adults with one of these types of lymphoma may be eligible for one of three open-label, randomized, phase 3 trials testing odronextamab (from Regeneron). This bispecific antibody is designed to ‘lock together’ CD20 on cancer cells with CD3-expressing cancer-killing T cells. It has shown anti-lymphoma activity in heavily pretreated patients.

Late in 2023, three phase 3 trials turned the spotlight on treatment-naive patients and started recruiting 2115 participants to assess odronextamab in this setting. The trial OLYMPIA-1 will compare odronextamab with standard-of-care rituximab (Rituxan) plus chemotherapy in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-2 will test the drug in combination with chemotherapy, also in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-3 will evaluate odronextamab plus chemotherapy against rituximab and chemotherapy in people with large B-cell lymphoma.

All study drugs, including odronextamab, will be administered by intravenous infusion, and participants will be followed for up to 5 years. Research centers across eight US states and Australia, Czechia, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and Thailand are currently accepting participants for the three trials. The primary outcomes are various measures of toxicity and complete response at 30 months in the follicular lymphoma studies and toxicity and progression-free survival in large B-cell lymphoma. All three trials are measuring overall survival and QoL as secondary endpoints.

Previously untreated stage II, III, or IV follicular lymphoma. Adults with this type of cancer may be eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing whether an experimental therapy called epcoritamab (from AbbVie) improves disease response and is tolerable when added to standard therapy. For up to 120 weeks, one group of participants will receive a combination of intravenous rituximab and oral lenalidomide (Revlimid), while a second group will also receive subcutaneous injections of epcoritamab. Some participants may be offered investigators’ choice of chemotherapy as well.

Sites across Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and Montana started welcoming their 900 participants in February 2024. The primary outcome is complete response at 30 months. Overall survival and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Adults facing one of these clinical scenarios can join an Academic and Community Cancer Research United open label, phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of combining tafasitamab (Monjuvi), lenalidomide, and venetoclax (Venclexta) for such patients.

Frontline therapy does not cure mantle cell lymphoma, and continued relapses are common. In this situation, treatments can include acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, stem cell transplantation, venetoclax, lenalidomide, and rituximab.

In this study, participants will take venetoclax and lenalidomide daily and receive intravenous tafasitamab every 2 weeks after an initial ramp-up period as per clinic standards. Participants will be followed for 5 years after entering the trial. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, began recruiting the planned 100 trial participants in January 2024. The primary outcome is objective response rate; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several clinical trials in leukemia and lymphoma have started enrolling recently. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from taking part?

Hematological malignancy scheduled for a human leukocyte antigen–mismatched unrelated donor transplant. Adult patients in this situation who are younger than 66 years may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 2 study run by the Center for International Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Research.

The purpose of the study is to test whether cyclophosphamide, which is given to prevent a dreaded complication of stem cell transplantation called graft-versus-host disease, can be safely reduced without increasing infection or reducing protection. All participants will receive cyclophosphamide on days 3 and 4 post transplant. One group will receive a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (25 mg/kg per dose), and the other will be given a usual dose (37.5 mg/kg).

Sites in Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington started recruiting for 190 participants in December 2023. Study centers in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin are also planned. Infection-free survival is the primary endpoint, and overall survival is a secondary measure. Quality of life (QoL) is not recorded. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Adults who are newly diagnosed with this type of cancer and have active disease may wish to consider a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an experimental Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, nemtabrutinib (from Merck Sharp & Dohme), against standard-of-care BTK inhibitors ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and acalabrutinib (Calquence).

BTK inhibitors target B-cell proliferation in B-cell cancers such as CLL/SLL and allow for chemotherapy-free treatment of some hematological malignancies. In this study, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or another reason for discontinuation occurs, participants will take daily oral nemtabrutinib, ibrutinib, or acalabrutinib.

The study opened in December 2023 in Pennsylvania, Washington, Taiwan, Israel, and the United Kingdom seeking 1200 participants. The primary outcomes are objective response rate and progression-free survival. Overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Relapsed or refractory leukemia with a KMT2A-gene rearrangement (KMT2A-r). Children aged 1 month to younger than 6 years with this diagnosis may be able to join an open-label, nonrandomized, Children’s Oncology Group phase 2 study to determine the most tolerable and/or effective dose of an experimental oral drug called revumenib when added to chemotherapy.

KMT2A-gene alterations are associated with a poor prognosis in leukemia. These alterations cause blood cells to dedifferentiate and start proliferating uncontrollably as leukemia cells. The expression of the damaged KMT2A gene relies on a protein called menin. Revumenib, from Syndax Pharmaceuticals, blocks menin and prevents expression of KMT2A.

Children in the study will receive two different regimens of revumenib in combination with chemotherapy for up to a year, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and will then be followed for up to 5 years. Trial centers in 12 US states opened their doors in January 2024 looking for 78 participants. Toxicities and minimal residual disease are the primary outcomes; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously untreated follicular lymphoma or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Adults with one of these types of lymphoma may be eligible for one of three open-label, randomized, phase 3 trials testing odronextamab (from Regeneron). This bispecific antibody is designed to ‘lock together’ CD20 on cancer cells with CD3-expressing cancer-killing T cells. It has shown anti-lymphoma activity in heavily pretreated patients.

Late in 2023, three phase 3 trials turned the spotlight on treatment-naive patients and started recruiting 2115 participants to assess odronextamab in this setting. The trial OLYMPIA-1 will compare odronextamab with standard-of-care rituximab (Rituxan) plus chemotherapy in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-2 will test the drug in combination with chemotherapy, also in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-3 will evaluate odronextamab plus chemotherapy against rituximab and chemotherapy in people with large B-cell lymphoma.

All study drugs, including odronextamab, will be administered by intravenous infusion, and participants will be followed for up to 5 years. Research centers across eight US states and Australia, Czechia, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and Thailand are currently accepting participants for the three trials. The primary outcomes are various measures of toxicity and complete response at 30 months in the follicular lymphoma studies and toxicity and progression-free survival in large B-cell lymphoma. All three trials are measuring overall survival and QoL as secondary endpoints.

Previously untreated stage II, III, or IV follicular lymphoma. Adults with this type of cancer may be eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing whether an experimental therapy called epcoritamab (from AbbVie) improves disease response and is tolerable when added to standard therapy. For up to 120 weeks, one group of participants will receive a combination of intravenous rituximab and oral lenalidomide (Revlimid), while a second group will also receive subcutaneous injections of epcoritamab. Some participants may be offered investigators’ choice of chemotherapy as well.

Sites across Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and Montana started welcoming their 900 participants in February 2024. The primary outcome is complete response at 30 months. Overall survival and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Adults facing one of these clinical scenarios can join an Academic and Community Cancer Research United open label, phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of combining tafasitamab (Monjuvi), lenalidomide, and venetoclax (Venclexta) for such patients.

Frontline therapy does not cure mantle cell lymphoma, and continued relapses are common. In this situation, treatments can include acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, stem cell transplantation, venetoclax, lenalidomide, and rituximab.

In this study, participants will take venetoclax and lenalidomide daily and receive intravenous tafasitamab every 2 weeks after an initial ramp-up period as per clinic standards. Participants will be followed for 5 years after entering the trial. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, began recruiting the planned 100 trial participants in January 2024. The primary outcome is objective response rate; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains an extraordinarily deadly form of blood cancer, with fewer than 30% of affected adults expected to live for more than 3 years. But these statistics mark an improvement, thanks to advances in treatment options, with children especially likely to survive the disease.

For adult patients, “we’ve seen a series of remarkable and well-overdue advances in a space that had not changed much over the prior decades,” hematologist/oncologist Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, said in an interview.

According to the National Cancer Institute, AML will be newly diagnosed in 20,800 patients in 2024, at a median age of 69, and will cause 11,220 deaths. As many as 70% of adult patients will reach complete remission, and 45% of those will live for more than 3 years and potentially be cured. As for children, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society says the 5-year survival rate from 2012-2018 was 69% for those under 15 years old.

As the American Cancer Society notes, the goal of AML treatment “is to put the leukemia into complete remission (the bone marrow and blood cell counts return to normal), preferably a complete molecular remission (no signs of leukemia in the bone marrow, even using sensitive lab tests), and to keep it that way.”
 

Chemotherapy Strategies Shift Over Time

In terms of the treatment of adults with AML, “targeted therapies, in addition to the expanding role of venetoclax, has really altered our approach to AML from diagnosis, including after relapse, and later in the disease,” hematologist/oncologist Andrew M. Brunner, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “The ability to explore these options as monotherapy and in novel combinations has dramatically expanded our treatment options.”

Much depends on the underlying genetic profile of the disease, he said. “There certainly have been gains in patient survival in AML, but those improvements remain fairly heterogeneous and dependent on the underlying genetic profile of the disease. For instance, advances in FLT3- and IDH1/2-mutated AML are a direct result of the improvements in targeted therapies directed at these mutations. Similarly, some molecular and cytogenetic subtypes of AML are particularly responsive to venetoclax-based regimens, and these regimens have been expanded to previously undertreated populations, particularly those over age 60.”

Specifically, Dr. LeBlanc said, the Food and Drug Administration has approved “3 different FLT3 inhibitors, 2 IDH1 inhibitors, 1 IDH2 inhibitor, a BCL-2 inhibitor, a smoothened/hedgehog pathway inhibitor, an oral maintenance chemotherapy/hypomethylating agent (CC-486/oral azacitidine), a CD33-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, and even a novel formulation of two older chemotherapies that improves efficacy in a poor prognosis subgroup (CPX-351/liposomal daunorubicin and cytarabine).”

There’s also been a shift in treatment protocols for patients who were not fit for intensive chemotherapy. In the past, he said, it was standard “to give single-agent hypomethylating chemotherapy with azacitidine or decitabine, or in some contexts, low-dose chemotherapy with cytarabine. Today, many patients who are older and/or more frail are receiving novel therapies either alone or in combination, with greater efficacy and longer duration of response than previously seen with chemotherapy alone.”
 

Outcomes Improve but Remain Grim in High-Risk Cases

As a result, Dr. LeBlanc said, “we’re definitely seeing much better outcomes in AML overall. It takes some time to prove this via outcomes data assessments in a large population, but I expect that registries will show significant improvements in overall survival in the coming years, owing to the many new FDA approvals in AML”

Dr. LeBlanc highlighted national data from 2013-2019 showing that the 5-year relative survival rate from AML is 31.7%. That’s up from 26% just a few years ago, and the numbers “always lag several years behind the current year of practice,” he said. However, “the major area where we still have relatively poor outcomes and significant unmet needs remains the ‘adverse risk’ group of patients, particularly those who are older and/or not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, which generally is the only potentially curative option for adverse-risk AML.”

He went on to say that “this risk grouping includes those with TP53 mutations, most of which confer a particularly poor prognosis. Exciting therapies that many of us were hoping would prove effective in this subgroup have unfortunately failed in recent clinical trials. We still have a lot of work to do in adverse-risk AML particularly, and also for those whose leukemia has relapsed.”

Mikkael Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of the Division of Hematology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, agreed that more progress is needed, since survival rates are low even as lifespans improve. One key will be “better identifying subtypes of acute myeloid leukemia, and identifying the therapies that will benefit those people most,” he said in an interview. On the other side, it’s important to identify “when aggressive therapies aren’t going to work in somebody and maybe turn toward less-aggressive approaches so we can maximize that person’s quality of life.”

What advice do AML experts have for their colleagues? Dr. LeBlanc said “older patients are not often enough considered for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which could potentially cure their AML when given as a consolidation treatment for those in remission. I have several patients who are healthy and in their 70s who have enormously benefited from transplants and are now being several years out from transplant with adverse risk AML and without relapse. They’ve had no significant impairments of their quality of life, including no significant graft vs. host disease.”

Dr. Sekeres highlighted the American Society of Hematology’s guidelines for treating older adults with AML, which are currently being updated. It’s crucial to order genetic testing “up front,” he said. “I’m often pleasantly surprised when genetic testing returns and reveals that I have other treatment options.”

However, it’s crucial to understand a patient’s priorities. “I’ve had patients who are 75 who say to me, ‘Do everything under the sun to get rid of my leukemia, I want to live as long as possible.’ And I’ve had patients who say, ‘I want to see as little of doctors and nurses as I can. I want you to maximize my quality of life and keep me out of the hospital.’ ”

Dr. Sekeres also noted that insurers may not cover some pill-based AML treatments such as venetoclax. “We work with our patients and assistance programs. For the most part, we’re pretty successful at getting these drugs for our patients,” he said.
 

In Pediatrics, Clinical Trials Are Crucial

AML in children is less well-known than in adults, since the number of cases is so small. The disease is diagnosed in about 500 children a year in the United States, according to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, adding, however, that AML is “the most common second cancer among children treated for other cancers.”

AML in children gained attention earlier this year when the 2-year-old daughter of a Boston Herald NFL reporter died of the disease following a bone marrow transplant and chemotherapy. Despite the agonies of her treatment, reporter Doug Kyed told a reporter that his daughter Hallie “was still able to find joy every day.”

In an interview, hematologist/oncologist Sarah K. Tasian, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said researchers are discovering that pediatric AML is significantly different on from a biological perspective from adult AML. “We’ve come to understand a lot more about who these patients are, what makes these leukemias tick, and what their Achilles’ heels are. Then we can align that with the clinical trials outcome data that we have.”

About 80%-90% of pediatric patients with AML nationwide are enrolled in clinical trials, Dr. Tasian said, and an international consortium called the Children’s Oncology Group gathers data about genetics. About 60%-70% of patients will be cured, she added.

However, “we’ve kind of been stuck for about the last 20 years,” she said. “A lot of improving the survival of patients has not been because we’ve been better at chemotherapy or using new chemo, but because we’ve gotten better at supportive care, at treating infections that can be fatal.”

There haven’t been major conflicts with insurers over coverage, she said, although drug shortages are a problem, especially in relapsed AML.

As for advice to colleagues, Dr. Tasian counseled them to understand the importance of genetic testing and the expanding role of stem cell transplants. “We are now transplanting somewhere between 30% and 50% of children with AML, which is a higher rate than we used to do,” she said. The number is up thanks to genetic testing that reveals which patients are most likely to benefit.

Also, she noted, “the chemotherapy that we get to these patients is really strong, and patients have a lot of complications. Really pay attention to supportive care.”

Dr. LeBlanc reported ties with AbbVie, Agios/Servier, Astellas, BMS/Celgene, Genentech, Pfizer, Incyte, Rige, Deverra, GSK, Jazz, and Seattle Genetics. Dr. Sekeres discloses relationships with BMS and Kurome. Dr. Tasian serves as the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Pediatric Acute Leukemia consortium clinical trials leader and works with pharmaceutical companies on clinical trials under confidentiality agreements. Dr. Brunner has no disclosures.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains an extraordinarily deadly form of blood cancer, with fewer than 30% of affected adults expected to live for more than 3 years. But these statistics mark an improvement, thanks to advances in treatment options, with children especially likely to survive the disease.

For adult patients, “we’ve seen a series of remarkable and well-overdue advances in a space that had not changed much over the prior decades,” hematologist/oncologist Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, said in an interview.

According to the National Cancer Institute, AML will be newly diagnosed in 20,800 patients in 2024, at a median age of 69, and will cause 11,220 deaths. As many as 70% of adult patients will reach complete remission, and 45% of those will live for more than 3 years and potentially be cured. As for children, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society says the 5-year survival rate from 2012-2018 was 69% for those under 15 years old.

As the American Cancer Society notes, the goal of AML treatment “is to put the leukemia into complete remission (the bone marrow and blood cell counts return to normal), preferably a complete molecular remission (no signs of leukemia in the bone marrow, even using sensitive lab tests), and to keep it that way.”
 

Chemotherapy Strategies Shift Over Time

In terms of the treatment of adults with AML, “targeted therapies, in addition to the expanding role of venetoclax, has really altered our approach to AML from diagnosis, including after relapse, and later in the disease,” hematologist/oncologist Andrew M. Brunner, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “The ability to explore these options as monotherapy and in novel combinations has dramatically expanded our treatment options.”

Much depends on the underlying genetic profile of the disease, he said. “There certainly have been gains in patient survival in AML, but those improvements remain fairly heterogeneous and dependent on the underlying genetic profile of the disease. For instance, advances in FLT3- and IDH1/2-mutated AML are a direct result of the improvements in targeted therapies directed at these mutations. Similarly, some molecular and cytogenetic subtypes of AML are particularly responsive to venetoclax-based regimens, and these regimens have been expanded to previously undertreated populations, particularly those over age 60.”

Specifically, Dr. LeBlanc said, the Food and Drug Administration has approved “3 different FLT3 inhibitors, 2 IDH1 inhibitors, 1 IDH2 inhibitor, a BCL-2 inhibitor, a smoothened/hedgehog pathway inhibitor, an oral maintenance chemotherapy/hypomethylating agent (CC-486/oral azacitidine), a CD33-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, and even a novel formulation of two older chemotherapies that improves efficacy in a poor prognosis subgroup (CPX-351/liposomal daunorubicin and cytarabine).”

There’s also been a shift in treatment protocols for patients who were not fit for intensive chemotherapy. In the past, he said, it was standard “to give single-agent hypomethylating chemotherapy with azacitidine or decitabine, or in some contexts, low-dose chemotherapy with cytarabine. Today, many patients who are older and/or more frail are receiving novel therapies either alone or in combination, with greater efficacy and longer duration of response than previously seen with chemotherapy alone.”
 

Outcomes Improve but Remain Grim in High-Risk Cases

As a result, Dr. LeBlanc said, “we’re definitely seeing much better outcomes in AML overall. It takes some time to prove this via outcomes data assessments in a large population, but I expect that registries will show significant improvements in overall survival in the coming years, owing to the many new FDA approvals in AML”

Dr. LeBlanc highlighted national data from 2013-2019 showing that the 5-year relative survival rate from AML is 31.7%. That’s up from 26% just a few years ago, and the numbers “always lag several years behind the current year of practice,” he said. However, “the major area where we still have relatively poor outcomes and significant unmet needs remains the ‘adverse risk’ group of patients, particularly those who are older and/or not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, which generally is the only potentially curative option for adverse-risk AML.”

He went on to say that “this risk grouping includes those with TP53 mutations, most of which confer a particularly poor prognosis. Exciting therapies that many of us were hoping would prove effective in this subgroup have unfortunately failed in recent clinical trials. We still have a lot of work to do in adverse-risk AML particularly, and also for those whose leukemia has relapsed.”

Mikkael Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of the Division of Hematology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, agreed that more progress is needed, since survival rates are low even as lifespans improve. One key will be “better identifying subtypes of acute myeloid leukemia, and identifying the therapies that will benefit those people most,” he said in an interview. On the other side, it’s important to identify “when aggressive therapies aren’t going to work in somebody and maybe turn toward less-aggressive approaches so we can maximize that person’s quality of life.”

What advice do AML experts have for their colleagues? Dr. LeBlanc said “older patients are not often enough considered for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which could potentially cure their AML when given as a consolidation treatment for those in remission. I have several patients who are healthy and in their 70s who have enormously benefited from transplants and are now being several years out from transplant with adverse risk AML and without relapse. They’ve had no significant impairments of their quality of life, including no significant graft vs. host disease.”

Dr. Sekeres highlighted the American Society of Hematology’s guidelines for treating older adults with AML, which are currently being updated. It’s crucial to order genetic testing “up front,” he said. “I’m often pleasantly surprised when genetic testing returns and reveals that I have other treatment options.”

However, it’s crucial to understand a patient’s priorities. “I’ve had patients who are 75 who say to me, ‘Do everything under the sun to get rid of my leukemia, I want to live as long as possible.’ And I’ve had patients who say, ‘I want to see as little of doctors and nurses as I can. I want you to maximize my quality of life and keep me out of the hospital.’ ”

Dr. Sekeres also noted that insurers may not cover some pill-based AML treatments such as venetoclax. “We work with our patients and assistance programs. For the most part, we’re pretty successful at getting these drugs for our patients,” he said.
 

In Pediatrics, Clinical Trials Are Crucial

AML in children is less well-known than in adults, since the number of cases is so small. The disease is diagnosed in about 500 children a year in the United States, according to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, adding, however, that AML is “the most common second cancer among children treated for other cancers.”

AML in children gained attention earlier this year when the 2-year-old daughter of a Boston Herald NFL reporter died of the disease following a bone marrow transplant and chemotherapy. Despite the agonies of her treatment, reporter Doug Kyed told a reporter that his daughter Hallie “was still able to find joy every day.”

In an interview, hematologist/oncologist Sarah K. Tasian, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said researchers are discovering that pediatric AML is significantly different on from a biological perspective from adult AML. “We’ve come to understand a lot more about who these patients are, what makes these leukemias tick, and what their Achilles’ heels are. Then we can align that with the clinical trials outcome data that we have.”

About 80%-90% of pediatric patients with AML nationwide are enrolled in clinical trials, Dr. Tasian said, and an international consortium called the Children’s Oncology Group gathers data about genetics. About 60%-70% of patients will be cured, she added.

However, “we’ve kind of been stuck for about the last 20 years,” she said. “A lot of improving the survival of patients has not been because we’ve been better at chemotherapy or using new chemo, but because we’ve gotten better at supportive care, at treating infections that can be fatal.”

There haven’t been major conflicts with insurers over coverage, she said, although drug shortages are a problem, especially in relapsed AML.

As for advice to colleagues, Dr. Tasian counseled them to understand the importance of genetic testing and the expanding role of stem cell transplants. “We are now transplanting somewhere between 30% and 50% of children with AML, which is a higher rate than we used to do,” she said. The number is up thanks to genetic testing that reveals which patients are most likely to benefit.

Also, she noted, “the chemotherapy that we get to these patients is really strong, and patients have a lot of complications. Really pay attention to supportive care.”

Dr. LeBlanc reported ties with AbbVie, Agios/Servier, Astellas, BMS/Celgene, Genentech, Pfizer, Incyte, Rige, Deverra, GSK, Jazz, and Seattle Genetics. Dr. Sekeres discloses relationships with BMS and Kurome. Dr. Tasian serves as the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Pediatric Acute Leukemia consortium clinical trials leader and works with pharmaceutical companies on clinical trials under confidentiality agreements. Dr. Brunner has no disclosures.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains an extraordinarily deadly form of blood cancer, with fewer than 30% of affected adults expected to live for more than 3 years. But these statistics mark an improvement, thanks to advances in treatment options, with children especially likely to survive the disease.

For adult patients, “we’ve seen a series of remarkable and well-overdue advances in a space that had not changed much over the prior decades,” hematologist/oncologist Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, said in an interview.

According to the National Cancer Institute, AML will be newly diagnosed in 20,800 patients in 2024, at a median age of 69, and will cause 11,220 deaths. As many as 70% of adult patients will reach complete remission, and 45% of those will live for more than 3 years and potentially be cured. As for children, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society says the 5-year survival rate from 2012-2018 was 69% for those under 15 years old.

As the American Cancer Society notes, the goal of AML treatment “is to put the leukemia into complete remission (the bone marrow and blood cell counts return to normal), preferably a complete molecular remission (no signs of leukemia in the bone marrow, even using sensitive lab tests), and to keep it that way.”
 

Chemotherapy Strategies Shift Over Time

In terms of the treatment of adults with AML, “targeted therapies, in addition to the expanding role of venetoclax, has really altered our approach to AML from diagnosis, including after relapse, and later in the disease,” hematologist/oncologist Andrew M. Brunner, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “The ability to explore these options as monotherapy and in novel combinations has dramatically expanded our treatment options.”

Much depends on the underlying genetic profile of the disease, he said. “There certainly have been gains in patient survival in AML, but those improvements remain fairly heterogeneous and dependent on the underlying genetic profile of the disease. For instance, advances in FLT3- and IDH1/2-mutated AML are a direct result of the improvements in targeted therapies directed at these mutations. Similarly, some molecular and cytogenetic subtypes of AML are particularly responsive to venetoclax-based regimens, and these regimens have been expanded to previously undertreated populations, particularly those over age 60.”

Specifically, Dr. LeBlanc said, the Food and Drug Administration has approved “3 different FLT3 inhibitors, 2 IDH1 inhibitors, 1 IDH2 inhibitor, a BCL-2 inhibitor, a smoothened/hedgehog pathway inhibitor, an oral maintenance chemotherapy/hypomethylating agent (CC-486/oral azacitidine), a CD33-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, and even a novel formulation of two older chemotherapies that improves efficacy in a poor prognosis subgroup (CPX-351/liposomal daunorubicin and cytarabine).”

There’s also been a shift in treatment protocols for patients who were not fit for intensive chemotherapy. In the past, he said, it was standard “to give single-agent hypomethylating chemotherapy with azacitidine or decitabine, or in some contexts, low-dose chemotherapy with cytarabine. Today, many patients who are older and/or more frail are receiving novel therapies either alone or in combination, with greater efficacy and longer duration of response than previously seen with chemotherapy alone.”
 

Outcomes Improve but Remain Grim in High-Risk Cases

As a result, Dr. LeBlanc said, “we’re definitely seeing much better outcomes in AML overall. It takes some time to prove this via outcomes data assessments in a large population, but I expect that registries will show significant improvements in overall survival in the coming years, owing to the many new FDA approvals in AML”

Dr. LeBlanc highlighted national data from 2013-2019 showing that the 5-year relative survival rate from AML is 31.7%. That’s up from 26% just a few years ago, and the numbers “always lag several years behind the current year of practice,” he said. However, “the major area where we still have relatively poor outcomes and significant unmet needs remains the ‘adverse risk’ group of patients, particularly those who are older and/or not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, which generally is the only potentially curative option for adverse-risk AML.”

He went on to say that “this risk grouping includes those with TP53 mutations, most of which confer a particularly poor prognosis. Exciting therapies that many of us were hoping would prove effective in this subgroup have unfortunately failed in recent clinical trials. We still have a lot of work to do in adverse-risk AML particularly, and also for those whose leukemia has relapsed.”

Mikkael Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of the Division of Hematology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, agreed that more progress is needed, since survival rates are low even as lifespans improve. One key will be “better identifying subtypes of acute myeloid leukemia, and identifying the therapies that will benefit those people most,” he said in an interview. On the other side, it’s important to identify “when aggressive therapies aren’t going to work in somebody and maybe turn toward less-aggressive approaches so we can maximize that person’s quality of life.”

What advice do AML experts have for their colleagues? Dr. LeBlanc said “older patients are not often enough considered for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which could potentially cure their AML when given as a consolidation treatment for those in remission. I have several patients who are healthy and in their 70s who have enormously benefited from transplants and are now being several years out from transplant with adverse risk AML and without relapse. They’ve had no significant impairments of their quality of life, including no significant graft vs. host disease.”

Dr. Sekeres highlighted the American Society of Hematology’s guidelines for treating older adults with AML, which are currently being updated. It’s crucial to order genetic testing “up front,” he said. “I’m often pleasantly surprised when genetic testing returns and reveals that I have other treatment options.”

However, it’s crucial to understand a patient’s priorities. “I’ve had patients who are 75 who say to me, ‘Do everything under the sun to get rid of my leukemia, I want to live as long as possible.’ And I’ve had patients who say, ‘I want to see as little of doctors and nurses as I can. I want you to maximize my quality of life and keep me out of the hospital.’ ”

Dr. Sekeres also noted that insurers may not cover some pill-based AML treatments such as venetoclax. “We work with our patients and assistance programs. For the most part, we’re pretty successful at getting these drugs for our patients,” he said.
 

In Pediatrics, Clinical Trials Are Crucial

AML in children is less well-known than in adults, since the number of cases is so small. The disease is diagnosed in about 500 children a year in the United States, according to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, adding, however, that AML is “the most common second cancer among children treated for other cancers.”

AML in children gained attention earlier this year when the 2-year-old daughter of a Boston Herald NFL reporter died of the disease following a bone marrow transplant and chemotherapy. Despite the agonies of her treatment, reporter Doug Kyed told a reporter that his daughter Hallie “was still able to find joy every day.”

In an interview, hematologist/oncologist Sarah K. Tasian, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said researchers are discovering that pediatric AML is significantly different on from a biological perspective from adult AML. “We’ve come to understand a lot more about who these patients are, what makes these leukemias tick, and what their Achilles’ heels are. Then we can align that with the clinical trials outcome data that we have.”

About 80%-90% of pediatric patients with AML nationwide are enrolled in clinical trials, Dr. Tasian said, and an international consortium called the Children’s Oncology Group gathers data about genetics. About 60%-70% of patients will be cured, she added.

However, “we’ve kind of been stuck for about the last 20 years,” she said. “A lot of improving the survival of patients has not been because we’ve been better at chemotherapy or using new chemo, but because we’ve gotten better at supportive care, at treating infections that can be fatal.”

There haven’t been major conflicts with insurers over coverage, she said, although drug shortages are a problem, especially in relapsed AML.

As for advice to colleagues, Dr. Tasian counseled them to understand the importance of genetic testing and the expanding role of stem cell transplants. “We are now transplanting somewhere between 30% and 50% of children with AML, which is a higher rate than we used to do,” she said. The number is up thanks to genetic testing that reveals which patients are most likely to benefit.

Also, she noted, “the chemotherapy that we get to these patients is really strong, and patients have a lot of complications. Really pay attention to supportive care.”

Dr. LeBlanc reported ties with AbbVie, Agios/Servier, Astellas, BMS/Celgene, Genentech, Pfizer, Incyte, Rige, Deverra, GSK, Jazz, and Seattle Genetics. Dr. Sekeres discloses relationships with BMS and Kurome. Dr. Tasian serves as the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Pediatric Acute Leukemia consortium clinical trials leader and works with pharmaceutical companies on clinical trials under confidentiality agreements. Dr. Brunner has no disclosures.

Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives. A large cohort study highlighted an association between the consumption of certain emulsifiers and an increased risk for certain cancers, particularly breast and prostate cancer.

Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.

Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.

Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.

The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.

In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).

Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.

In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.

The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.

It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives. A large cohort study highlighted an association between the consumption of certain emulsifiers and an increased risk for certain cancers, particularly breast and prostate cancer.

Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.

Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.

Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.

The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.

In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).

Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.

In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.

The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.

It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives. A large cohort study highlighted an association between the consumption of certain emulsifiers and an increased risk for certain cancers, particularly breast and prostate cancer.

Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.

Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.

Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.

The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.

In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).

Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.

In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.

The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.

It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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 group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

The chemotherapy drug asparaginase revolutionized childhood cancer care in the 1970s, and it’s still a mainstay of treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) today. But asparaginase remains difficult for some to tolerate, and clinicians keep needing to adjust therapy to address toxicity.

The good news, hematologists note, is that new strategies have been developed to address side effects. “We’ve gotten better at managing them,” pediatric oncologist Birte Wistinghausen, MD, of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, said in an interview.

According to her, key approaches include sensitivity testing and “pre-medication” to prevent adverse effects from appearing in the first place.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 6,550 new cases of ALL appear in the United States each year, and 1,330 people die from the disease.

“Most cases of ALL occur in children, but most deaths from ALL (about 4 out of 5) occur in adults,” the organization reports. Indeed, the 5-year survival rate in children is now at about 90%, a number that hematologists partially attribute to the power of asparaginase.

Researchers believe that asparaginase, an enzyme, works by breaking down a substance called asparagine, which ALL cells use to reproduce. The drug is “universally used throughout the treatment of ALL in children and adolescents,” Luke Maese, DO, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah–Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, and director of Leukemia/Lymphoma at Primary Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “It has become more and more adopted in the treatment of young adults as well.”

The formulations of available asparaginase have evolved over the years, Dr. Maese said. “Currently, the first-line asparaginase products delivered in the majority of patients throughout the world are pegylated, meaning they have an extended duration of action. There are non-pegylated asparaginase products that are used as well.”

The pegylated drugs are much easier on patients since they don’t require frequent injections, according to experts.

Treatment protocols vary, Dr. Maese said. “Some use the drug intermittently intermixed throughout therapy, and others have periods of continuous asparaginase use — i.e. 10-20 weeks of repeated doses of the drug.”

All patients are likely to experience side effects, he said, and about 5%-10% of standard-risk and 20%-25% of high-risk patients will experience clinically significant problems.

When asparaginase is given by IV, its rapid onset can lead to a condition called acute hyperammonemia, in which ammonia levels rise and patients develop flushing, anxiety, and low blood pressure, said Dr. Wistinghausen of Children’s National Hospital. “But that is not a reason to abandon asparaginase.”

It can be difficult to differentiate this effect from hypersensitivity — allergic reactions — which can range from hives to full anaphylactic shock that requires treatment with epinephrine, she said.

According to Dr. Maese, other major side effects other than hypersensitivity include pancreatitis, hepatotoxicity, and thrombosis. The most dangerous of these side effects are hypersensitivity and pancreatitis, which can lead to discontinuation of treatment, he said. Indeed, a 2017 study found that 2% of 465 patients with ALL who developed asparaginase-associated pancreatitis died, and 8% needed mechanical ventilation.

There’s no way to predict which patients may be susceptible to pancreatitis, Michael J. Burke, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of leukemia/lymphoma director at Children’s Wisconsin and Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

As for therapy options if pancreatitis develops, a 2022 review cowritten by Dr. Maese reported that clinicians have been leaning toward re-treating patients with asparaginase since it’s so crucial to treatment. This has worked about 50% of the time, the review reported, and “many groups consider it in the setting of all grade 2 pancreatitis and grade 3 pancreatitis without prolonged illness or severe complications.”

As for hypersensitivity, the most prevalent adverse effect, clinicians frequently administer anti-allergy medications prior to infusion. This approach, known as “pre-medication,” is controversial. Research has produced conflicting results, with a 2022 study in the journal Blood finding that pre-medication had no effect on hypersensitivity in children with ALL.

“Although there is mixed data, most institutions utilize this,” Dr. Maese said. “At our institution, we continue to use pre-medication prior to pegylated asparaginase but do not use it with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Specifically, most institutions administer H2 and H1 blockers, Dr. Wistinghausen said. “Some institutions also use hydrocortisone” — a steroid — “but our institution only uses it if patients have a reaction.”

Other potential adverse effects to treatment include infusion reactions, which can mimic allergic reactions such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and flushing, Dr. Maese said.

Asked how to treat patients who cannot tolerate first-line treatment with asparaginase, Dr. Burke responded, “There are second-generation asparaginase formulations for once a patient develops an allergy.”

Dr. Maese said his institution switches patients when necessary to asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi (recombinant)-rywn, also known as Rylaze.

Another recent development in ALL treatment is the widespread use of drug monitoring to make sure asparaginase is reaching therapeutic levels. “Asparagine itself is difficult to measure so we use a surrogate of asparaginase levels to demonstrate efficacy of the drug,” he said. “There is conflicting literature as to what constitutes a therapeutic level, but the internationally accepted standard is a level of ≥ 0.1 IU/mL. We monitor asparaginase levels routinely with pegylated asparaginase but not with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Tests can turn up “silent inactivation,” a term that refers to when the drug is “inactivated” and is not effective, Dr. Maese said. “There are several guidelines that have defined inactivation.” According to the 2022 report cowritten by Dr. Maese, Rylaze can be an alternative option if initial asparaginase treatment isn’t working.

With regard to cost, treatment with asparaginase can cost tens of thousands of dollars. However, insurers routinely pay for treatment plus pre-medication and testing, Dr. Burke said. “There’s no pushback. It seems to be accepted.”

What’s next on the horizon? “We need to understand better those patients who are at risk for toxicity,” Dr. Maese noted. “We understand obesity causes risk for certain toxicities, but have little else to go on. There has been some work with genomics and its relationship to risk of toxicity. However, it has been difficult to translate what has been found to patients.”

There’s work in progress that is exploring other preventive approaches to decrease toxicity, he said. Also, “optimizing the dosing of asparaginase has been explored more in Europe and within a smaller consortium in North America.”

In addition, he said, “as we begin to increase use of immunotherapy within our chemotherapy backbones, we need to understand the relationship these drugs have with asparaginase treatment.”

Dr. Burke and Dr. Wistinghausen have no disclosures. Dr. Maese discloses relationships with Jazz (advisory board, consultant, speakers bureau) and Servier (advisory board).

The chemotherapy drug asparaginase revolutionized childhood cancer care in the 1970s, and it’s still a mainstay of treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) today. But asparaginase remains difficult for some to tolerate, and clinicians keep needing to adjust therapy to address toxicity.

The good news, hematologists note, is that new strategies have been developed to address side effects. “We’ve gotten better at managing them,” pediatric oncologist Birte Wistinghausen, MD, of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, said in an interview.

According to her, key approaches include sensitivity testing and “pre-medication” to prevent adverse effects from appearing in the first place.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 6,550 new cases of ALL appear in the United States each year, and 1,330 people die from the disease.

“Most cases of ALL occur in children, but most deaths from ALL (about 4 out of 5) occur in adults,” the organization reports. Indeed, the 5-year survival rate in children is now at about 90%, a number that hematologists partially attribute to the power of asparaginase.

Researchers believe that asparaginase, an enzyme, works by breaking down a substance called asparagine, which ALL cells use to reproduce. The drug is “universally used throughout the treatment of ALL in children and adolescents,” Luke Maese, DO, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah–Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, and director of Leukemia/Lymphoma at Primary Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “It has become more and more adopted in the treatment of young adults as well.”

The formulations of available asparaginase have evolved over the years, Dr. Maese said. “Currently, the first-line asparaginase products delivered in the majority of patients throughout the world are pegylated, meaning they have an extended duration of action. There are non-pegylated asparaginase products that are used as well.”

The pegylated drugs are much easier on patients since they don’t require frequent injections, according to experts.

Treatment protocols vary, Dr. Maese said. “Some use the drug intermittently intermixed throughout therapy, and others have periods of continuous asparaginase use — i.e. 10-20 weeks of repeated doses of the drug.”

All patients are likely to experience side effects, he said, and about 5%-10% of standard-risk and 20%-25% of high-risk patients will experience clinically significant problems.

When asparaginase is given by IV, its rapid onset can lead to a condition called acute hyperammonemia, in which ammonia levels rise and patients develop flushing, anxiety, and low blood pressure, said Dr. Wistinghausen of Children’s National Hospital. “But that is not a reason to abandon asparaginase.”

It can be difficult to differentiate this effect from hypersensitivity — allergic reactions — which can range from hives to full anaphylactic shock that requires treatment with epinephrine, she said.

According to Dr. Maese, other major side effects other than hypersensitivity include pancreatitis, hepatotoxicity, and thrombosis. The most dangerous of these side effects are hypersensitivity and pancreatitis, which can lead to discontinuation of treatment, he said. Indeed, a 2017 study found that 2% of 465 patients with ALL who developed asparaginase-associated pancreatitis died, and 8% needed mechanical ventilation.

There’s no way to predict which patients may be susceptible to pancreatitis, Michael J. Burke, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of leukemia/lymphoma director at Children’s Wisconsin and Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

As for therapy options if pancreatitis develops, a 2022 review cowritten by Dr. Maese reported that clinicians have been leaning toward re-treating patients with asparaginase since it’s so crucial to treatment. This has worked about 50% of the time, the review reported, and “many groups consider it in the setting of all grade 2 pancreatitis and grade 3 pancreatitis without prolonged illness or severe complications.”

As for hypersensitivity, the most prevalent adverse effect, clinicians frequently administer anti-allergy medications prior to infusion. This approach, known as “pre-medication,” is controversial. Research has produced conflicting results, with a 2022 study in the journal Blood finding that pre-medication had no effect on hypersensitivity in children with ALL.

“Although there is mixed data, most institutions utilize this,” Dr. Maese said. “At our institution, we continue to use pre-medication prior to pegylated asparaginase but do not use it with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Specifically, most institutions administer H2 and H1 blockers, Dr. Wistinghausen said. “Some institutions also use hydrocortisone” — a steroid — “but our institution only uses it if patients have a reaction.”

Other potential adverse effects to treatment include infusion reactions, which can mimic allergic reactions such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and flushing, Dr. Maese said.

Asked how to treat patients who cannot tolerate first-line treatment with asparaginase, Dr. Burke responded, “There are second-generation asparaginase formulations for once a patient develops an allergy.”

Dr. Maese said his institution switches patients when necessary to asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi (recombinant)-rywn, also known as Rylaze.

Another recent development in ALL treatment is the widespread use of drug monitoring to make sure asparaginase is reaching therapeutic levels. “Asparagine itself is difficult to measure so we use a surrogate of asparaginase levels to demonstrate efficacy of the drug,” he said. “There is conflicting literature as to what constitutes a therapeutic level, but the internationally accepted standard is a level of ≥ 0.1 IU/mL. We monitor asparaginase levels routinely with pegylated asparaginase but not with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Tests can turn up “silent inactivation,” a term that refers to when the drug is “inactivated” and is not effective, Dr. Maese said. “There are several guidelines that have defined inactivation.” According to the 2022 report cowritten by Dr. Maese, Rylaze can be an alternative option if initial asparaginase treatment isn’t working.

With regard to cost, treatment with asparaginase can cost tens of thousands of dollars. However, insurers routinely pay for treatment plus pre-medication and testing, Dr. Burke said. “There’s no pushback. It seems to be accepted.”

What’s next on the horizon? “We need to understand better those patients who are at risk for toxicity,” Dr. Maese noted. “We understand obesity causes risk for certain toxicities, but have little else to go on. There has been some work with genomics and its relationship to risk of toxicity. However, it has been difficult to translate what has been found to patients.”

There’s work in progress that is exploring other preventive approaches to decrease toxicity, he said. Also, “optimizing the dosing of asparaginase has been explored more in Europe and within a smaller consortium in North America.”

In addition, he said, “as we begin to increase use of immunotherapy within our chemotherapy backbones, we need to understand the relationship these drugs have with asparaginase treatment.”

Dr. Burke and Dr. Wistinghausen have no disclosures. Dr. Maese discloses relationships with Jazz (advisory board, consultant, speakers bureau) and Servier (advisory board).

The chemotherapy drug asparaginase revolutionized childhood cancer care in the 1970s, and it’s still a mainstay of treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) today. But asparaginase remains difficult for some to tolerate, and clinicians keep needing to adjust therapy to address toxicity.

The good news, hematologists note, is that new strategies have been developed to address side effects. “We’ve gotten better at managing them,” pediatric oncologist Birte Wistinghausen, MD, of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, said in an interview.

According to her, key approaches include sensitivity testing and “pre-medication” to prevent adverse effects from appearing in the first place.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 6,550 new cases of ALL appear in the United States each year, and 1,330 people die from the disease.

“Most cases of ALL occur in children, but most deaths from ALL (about 4 out of 5) occur in adults,” the organization reports. Indeed, the 5-year survival rate in children is now at about 90%, a number that hematologists partially attribute to the power of asparaginase.

Researchers believe that asparaginase, an enzyme, works by breaking down a substance called asparagine, which ALL cells use to reproduce. The drug is “universally used throughout the treatment of ALL in children and adolescents,” Luke Maese, DO, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah–Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, and director of Leukemia/Lymphoma at Primary Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “It has become more and more adopted in the treatment of young adults as well.”

The formulations of available asparaginase have evolved over the years, Dr. Maese said. “Currently, the first-line asparaginase products delivered in the majority of patients throughout the world are pegylated, meaning they have an extended duration of action. There are non-pegylated asparaginase products that are used as well.”

The pegylated drugs are much easier on patients since they don’t require frequent injections, according to experts.

Treatment protocols vary, Dr. Maese said. “Some use the drug intermittently intermixed throughout therapy, and others have periods of continuous asparaginase use — i.e. 10-20 weeks of repeated doses of the drug.”

All patients are likely to experience side effects, he said, and about 5%-10% of standard-risk and 20%-25% of high-risk patients will experience clinically significant problems.

When asparaginase is given by IV, its rapid onset can lead to a condition called acute hyperammonemia, in which ammonia levels rise and patients develop flushing, anxiety, and low blood pressure, said Dr. Wistinghausen of Children’s National Hospital. “But that is not a reason to abandon asparaginase.”

It can be difficult to differentiate this effect from hypersensitivity — allergic reactions — which can range from hives to full anaphylactic shock that requires treatment with epinephrine, she said.

According to Dr. Maese, other major side effects other than hypersensitivity include pancreatitis, hepatotoxicity, and thrombosis. The most dangerous of these side effects are hypersensitivity and pancreatitis, which can lead to discontinuation of treatment, he said. Indeed, a 2017 study found that 2% of 465 patients with ALL who developed asparaginase-associated pancreatitis died, and 8% needed mechanical ventilation.

There’s no way to predict which patients may be susceptible to pancreatitis, Michael J. Burke, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of leukemia/lymphoma director at Children’s Wisconsin and Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

As for therapy options if pancreatitis develops, a 2022 review cowritten by Dr. Maese reported that clinicians have been leaning toward re-treating patients with asparaginase since it’s so crucial to treatment. This has worked about 50% of the time, the review reported, and “many groups consider it in the setting of all grade 2 pancreatitis and grade 3 pancreatitis without prolonged illness or severe complications.”

As for hypersensitivity, the most prevalent adverse effect, clinicians frequently administer anti-allergy medications prior to infusion. This approach, known as “pre-medication,” is controversial. Research has produced conflicting results, with a 2022 study in the journal Blood finding that pre-medication had no effect on hypersensitivity in children with ALL.

“Although there is mixed data, most institutions utilize this,” Dr. Maese said. “At our institution, we continue to use pre-medication prior to pegylated asparaginase but do not use it with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Specifically, most institutions administer H2 and H1 blockers, Dr. Wistinghausen said. “Some institutions also use hydrocortisone” — a steroid — “but our institution only uses it if patients have a reaction.”

Other potential adverse effects to treatment include infusion reactions, which can mimic allergic reactions such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and flushing, Dr. Maese said.

Asked how to treat patients who cannot tolerate first-line treatment with asparaginase, Dr. Burke responded, “There are second-generation asparaginase formulations for once a patient develops an allergy.”

Dr. Maese said his institution switches patients when necessary to asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi (recombinant)-rywn, also known as Rylaze.

Another recent development in ALL treatment is the widespread use of drug monitoring to make sure asparaginase is reaching therapeutic levels. “Asparagine itself is difficult to measure so we use a surrogate of asparaginase levels to demonstrate efficacy of the drug,” he said. “There is conflicting literature as to what constitutes a therapeutic level, but the internationally accepted standard is a level of ≥ 0.1 IU/mL. We monitor asparaginase levels routinely with pegylated asparaginase but not with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Tests can turn up “silent inactivation,” a term that refers to when the drug is “inactivated” and is not effective, Dr. Maese said. “There are several guidelines that have defined inactivation.” According to the 2022 report cowritten by Dr. Maese, Rylaze can be an alternative option if initial asparaginase treatment isn’t working.

With regard to cost, treatment with asparaginase can cost tens of thousands of dollars. However, insurers routinely pay for treatment plus pre-medication and testing, Dr. Burke said. “There’s no pushback. It seems to be accepted.”

What’s next on the horizon? “We need to understand better those patients who are at risk for toxicity,” Dr. Maese noted. “We understand obesity causes risk for certain toxicities, but have little else to go on. There has been some work with genomics and its relationship to risk of toxicity. However, it has been difficult to translate what has been found to patients.”

There’s work in progress that is exploring other preventive approaches to decrease toxicity, he said. Also, “optimizing the dosing of asparaginase has been explored more in Europe and within a smaller consortium in North America.”

In addition, he said, “as we begin to increase use of immunotherapy within our chemotherapy backbones, we need to understand the relationship these drugs have with asparaginase treatment.”

Dr. Burke and Dr. Wistinghausen have no disclosures. Dr. Maese discloses relationships with Jazz (advisory board, consultant, speakers bureau) and Servier (advisory board).

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped. 

Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions. 

Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.

Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age. 

Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.

At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.

That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said. 

Over the past 10 years, the popularity of focal therapy has grown among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer — Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy. 

But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.

As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs. 

No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.

Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques. 

“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.

“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said. 
 

Evidence-Based or Oversold?

Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.

Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.

“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said. 

In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.

But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.

In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said. 

The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.

A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.

One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.

In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.

Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.

A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence. 

Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.

When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.

Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”

The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.

“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.

Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.

Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.

“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.

But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States. 

“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.

William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”

Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.

Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.

Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy. 

“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.

At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?” 

Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.

Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”

Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.

Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.

“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped. 

Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions. 

Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.

Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age. 

Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.

At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.

That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said. 

Over the past 10 years, the popularity of focal therapy has grown among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer — Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy. 

But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.

As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs. 

No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.

Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques. 

“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.

“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said. 
 

Evidence-Based or Oversold?

Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.

Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.

“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said. 

In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.

But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.

In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said. 

The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.

A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.

One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.

In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.

Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.

A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence. 

Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.

When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.

Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”

The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.

“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.

Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.

Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.

“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.

But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States. 

“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.

William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”

Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.

Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.

Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy. 

“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.

At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?” 

Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.

Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”

Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.

Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.

“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped. 

Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions. 

Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.

Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age. 

Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.

At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.

That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said. 

Over the past 10 years, the popularity of focal therapy has grown among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer — Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy. 

But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.

As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs. 

No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.

Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques. 

“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.

“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said. 
 

Evidence-Based or Oversold?

Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.

Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.

“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said. 

In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.

But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.

In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said. 

The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.

A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.

One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.

In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.

Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.

A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence. 

Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.

When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.

Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”

The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.

“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.

Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.

Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.

“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.

But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States. 

“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.

William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”

Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.

Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.

Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy. 

“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.

At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?” 

Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.

Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”

Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.

Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.

“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Reports of a small number of patients developing secondary T-cell malignancies following treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy have raised concerns and prompted a class-wide boxed warning to the labeling of the therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for now experts underscore that the benefits of the groundbreaking therapies still appear to well outweigh the risks.

Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.

“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement

Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).

“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.

The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.

“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”

The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.

The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.

In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.

With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”

Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.

“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
 

Life-Long Monitoring Recommended

In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.

“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”

In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
 

T-Cell Malignancy Case Report

In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.

As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.

The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.

“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
 

‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients

With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”

In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.

“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.

Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.

“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
 

Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers

In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.

With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.

“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”

Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

Reports of a small number of patients developing secondary T-cell malignancies following treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy have raised concerns and prompted a class-wide boxed warning to the labeling of the therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for now experts underscore that the benefits of the groundbreaking therapies still appear to well outweigh the risks.

Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.

“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement

Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).

“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.

The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.

“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”

The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.

The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.

In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.

With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”

Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.

“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
 

Life-Long Monitoring Recommended

In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.

“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”

In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
 

T-Cell Malignancy Case Report

In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.

As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.

The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.

“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
 

‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients

With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”

In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.

“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.

Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.

“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
 

Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers

In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.

With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.

“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”

Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

Reports of a small number of patients developing secondary T-cell malignancies following treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy have raised concerns and prompted a class-wide boxed warning to the labeling of the therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for now experts underscore that the benefits of the groundbreaking therapies still appear to well outweigh the risks.

Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.

“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement

Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).

“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.

The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.

“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”

The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.

The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.

In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.

With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”

Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.

“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
 

Life-Long Monitoring Recommended

In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.

“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”

In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
 

T-Cell Malignancy Case Report

In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.

As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.

The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.

“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
 

‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients

With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”

In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.

“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.

Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.

“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
 

Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers

In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.

With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.

“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”

Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.