User login
MDedge latest news is breaking news from medical conferences, journals, guidelines, the FDA and CDC.
Dr. David Lieberman: A Groundbreaking Career in Gastroenterology
David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, spent much of his long career asking questions about everyday clinical practice in GI medicine and then researching ways to answer those questions.
“The answer to one question often leads to further questions. And I think that’s what makes this research so exciting and dynamic,” said Lieberman, professor emeritus with Oregon Health and Science University, where he served as chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for 24 years.
He was also instrumental in creating a blood and tissue repository for colorectal cancer (CRC) research, and a national endoscopic database.
His groundbreaking GI research in colorectal cancer screening earned him AGA’s Julius Friedenwald Medal, a top career honor. “We started off with some questions about the role of specific screening tests like colonoscopy and stool-based tests for screening,” he said. This led to the first large study about the value of screening with colonoscopy, which set the stage for current screening guidelines. Assessing more than 3,000 asymptomatic adults, Lieberman and colleagues determined that colonoscopy was more effective than sigmoidoscopy in detecting advanced colonic neoplasms.
The next phase of research focused on how well GI doctors were performing colonoscopy, asking questions about the quality of the colonoscopies being performed, and what course of action to take in polyp discovery. “We did some work related to polyp surveillance, what happens after we take out polyps and some recommendations for the appropriate length of follow up afterwards,” he summarized.
Most recently, Lieberman has centered his research on program effectiveness. “If you’re doing high quality colonoscopy and you’re doing appropriate surveillance, how effective is that? And what are the potential problems that might impair effectiveness?”
Adherence and participation remain significant challenges, he said. “If people don’t get the tests done, then they’re not going to be effective. Or if they get part of it done, there can be issues.”
In an interview, Lieberman discussed the reasons why people resist CRC screening, and the new technologies and research underway to make screening options more palatable for reluctant patients.
What do you think are the biggest deterrents to getting screened for CRC?
Dr. Lieberman: The whole idea of dealing with a stool sample is not appealing to patients. The second issue, and this has been shown in many studies, is patients who are referred for colonoscopy may resist because they have heard stories about bowel preps and about colonoscopy itself. But there are many other reasons. I mean, there are issues with access to care that are important. What if you have a positive stool test and you need to get a colonoscopy? How do you get a colonoscopy? There are barriers in moving from one test to the other in a different setting. There are issues with having to take a day off work that’s potentially a financial hardship for some patients. If you’re taking care of elderly relatives or children or if you need transportation, that’s an issue for people.
So, there are many potential barriers, and we’ve been trying to work at a national level to try to understand these barriers and then develop tools to mitigate these problems and improve the overall participation in screening.
How has the field of GI changed since you started practicing medicine?
Dr. Lieberman: I think there have been many exciting changes in technology. The endoscopes we used when I started my career were called fiberoptic scopes. These were scopes that contained tiny glass fibers that ran the length of the scope, and they were good, but not great in terms of imaging, and sometimes they would break down. We now have digital imaging that far surpasses the quality there. We’ve come a long way in terms of things like CT scans, for example, and MRI imaging. The other big technology change has been the development of minimally invasive treatments. For example, if you have a gallstone that’s in your bile duct, we now have ways to remove that without sending the patient to surgery.
The second big change has been the assessment of quality. When I started my career in gastroenterology, we were doing a lot of things, but we didn’t necessarily know if we were doing them well. Most of us thought we were doing them well, of course, but nobody was really measuring quality. There were no quality benchmarks. And so if you don’t measure it, you don’t know. Where we are today in gastroenterology is we’re intensively concerned about quality and measuring quality in various aspects of what we do. And I think that’s a positive development.
What key achievements came out of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer?
Dr. Lieberman: This panel evolved because back in the early 2000s, each of the GI organizations were producing guidelines related to colon cancer screening and follow-up. And they were slightly different. This was an attempt to bring all the relevant groups together and try to align the guidelines and recommendations among the GI organizations so that there wouldn’t be a confusing message.
Over the history of this task force, which started around 2002, it’s been remarkably productive. The task force has really examined all aspects of colorectal cancer, including things like the bowel prep, quality of exams, high risk management, hereditary syndromes that can lead to the higher likelihood of developing colon cancer, polypectomy and polypectomy techniques, and screening and surveillance recommendations, which have evolved over time. It’s been, in my opinion, a remarkably productive task force and continues to this day. I’m so very proud of that group.
Could you give a status update on the blood and tissue repository you created for CRC research?
Dr. Lieberman: Our initial studies were part of a Veterans Affairs cooperative study, which is a mechanism of funding within the VA that allows us to work with multiple VA centers to collect data and information. At the very outset of this study, we were performing screening colonoscopies in individuals, and we decided to create a bio-repository that included blood samples, polyp tissue, and normal rectal tissue. The thinking was at some point we might be able to do some genomic studies that might help us predict which patients are most likely to develop colon polyps and colon cancer. All that happened in the 1990s. It was supported by the National Cancer Institute. We created this repository, which sat for a long period of time while we were waiting for the technology to develop and so that we could perform genomic studies in a cost-effective way.
We’re now at that point, which is really exciting. We’re beginning to look at this tissue and perform some genomic studies. Some of this data has been presented at national meetings. This was a precursor to creating a similar type of bio-repository in a larger VA cooperative study. CSP #577 Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) is a randomized study comparing two forms of screening, a fecal immunochemical test versus a colonoscopy. We’re in the process of enrolling 50,000 patients in that study. We have also created a blood and tissue repository, which we hope will be useful for future studies.
You lead the AGA CRC Task Force, which advances research and policy initiatives to improve screening rates and patient outcomes. What would you like to see in future GI research, particularly in colorectal cancer?
Dr. Lieberman: We have new blood tests coming along that are going to be very attractive to both patients and physicians. You can obtain a blood sample at a point of service and patients won’t have to deal with stool samples. We need to understand how those tests perform in clinical practice. If the test is abnormal, indicating a patient has a higher risk of colon cancer and should get a colonoscopy, are they getting that colonoscopy or not? And what are the barriers? And if it’s normal, then that patient should have a repeat test at an appropriate interval.
We know that the effectiveness of screening really depends on the participation of individuals in terms of completing the steps. We’ve published some work already on trying to understand the role of these blood tests. We expect that these tests will continue to improve over time.
We’re also working on trying to develop these risk stratification tools that could be used in clinical practice to help figure out the most appropriate test for a particular individual.
Let’s say you go to your doctor for colon cancer screening, and if we could determine that you are a low-risk individual, you may benefit best from having a non-invasive test, like a blood test or a stool test. Whereas if you’re a higher risk individual, you may need to have a more invasive screening test like colonoscopy.
This falls into a concept of personalized medicine where we’re trying to use all the information we have from the medical history, and maybe genomic information that I mentioned earlier, to try to determine who needs the most intensive screening and who might benefit from less intensive screening.
I think the most recent work is really focused on these gaps in screening. And the biggest gap are patients that get a non-invasive test, like a stool test, but do not get a colonoscopy that renders the program ineffective if they don’t get the colonoscopy. We’re trying to highlight that for primary care providers and make sure that everyone understands the importance of this follow-up. And then, trying to develop tools to help the primary care provider navigate that patient to a colonoscopy.
What do you think is the biggest misconception about your specialty?
Dr. Lieberman: If there’s a misconception, it’s that GI physicians are focused on procedures. I think a good GI provider should be holistic, and I think many are. What I mean by holistic is that many GI symptoms could be due to stress, medications, diet, or other aspects of behavior, and the remedy is not necessarily a procedure. I think that many GI physicians are really skilled at obtaining this information and trying to help guide the patient through some uncomfortable symptoms.
It means being more like an internist, spending time with the patient to take a detailed history and delve into many different possibilities that might be going on.
David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, spent much of his long career asking questions about everyday clinical practice in GI medicine and then researching ways to answer those questions.
“The answer to one question often leads to further questions. And I think that’s what makes this research so exciting and dynamic,” said Lieberman, professor emeritus with Oregon Health and Science University, where he served as chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for 24 years.
He was also instrumental in creating a blood and tissue repository for colorectal cancer (CRC) research, and a national endoscopic database.
His groundbreaking GI research in colorectal cancer screening earned him AGA’s Julius Friedenwald Medal, a top career honor. “We started off with some questions about the role of specific screening tests like colonoscopy and stool-based tests for screening,” he said. This led to the first large study about the value of screening with colonoscopy, which set the stage for current screening guidelines. Assessing more than 3,000 asymptomatic adults, Lieberman and colleagues determined that colonoscopy was more effective than sigmoidoscopy in detecting advanced colonic neoplasms.
The next phase of research focused on how well GI doctors were performing colonoscopy, asking questions about the quality of the colonoscopies being performed, and what course of action to take in polyp discovery. “We did some work related to polyp surveillance, what happens after we take out polyps and some recommendations for the appropriate length of follow up afterwards,” he summarized.
Most recently, Lieberman has centered his research on program effectiveness. “If you’re doing high quality colonoscopy and you’re doing appropriate surveillance, how effective is that? And what are the potential problems that might impair effectiveness?”
Adherence and participation remain significant challenges, he said. “If people don’t get the tests done, then they’re not going to be effective. Or if they get part of it done, there can be issues.”
In an interview, Lieberman discussed the reasons why people resist CRC screening, and the new technologies and research underway to make screening options more palatable for reluctant patients.
What do you think are the biggest deterrents to getting screened for CRC?
Dr. Lieberman: The whole idea of dealing with a stool sample is not appealing to patients. The second issue, and this has been shown in many studies, is patients who are referred for colonoscopy may resist because they have heard stories about bowel preps and about colonoscopy itself. But there are many other reasons. I mean, there are issues with access to care that are important. What if you have a positive stool test and you need to get a colonoscopy? How do you get a colonoscopy? There are barriers in moving from one test to the other in a different setting. There are issues with having to take a day off work that’s potentially a financial hardship for some patients. If you’re taking care of elderly relatives or children or if you need transportation, that’s an issue for people.
So, there are many potential barriers, and we’ve been trying to work at a national level to try to understand these barriers and then develop tools to mitigate these problems and improve the overall participation in screening.
How has the field of GI changed since you started practicing medicine?
Dr. Lieberman: I think there have been many exciting changes in technology. The endoscopes we used when I started my career were called fiberoptic scopes. These were scopes that contained tiny glass fibers that ran the length of the scope, and they were good, but not great in terms of imaging, and sometimes they would break down. We now have digital imaging that far surpasses the quality there. We’ve come a long way in terms of things like CT scans, for example, and MRI imaging. The other big technology change has been the development of minimally invasive treatments. For example, if you have a gallstone that’s in your bile duct, we now have ways to remove that without sending the patient to surgery.
The second big change has been the assessment of quality. When I started my career in gastroenterology, we were doing a lot of things, but we didn’t necessarily know if we were doing them well. Most of us thought we were doing them well, of course, but nobody was really measuring quality. There were no quality benchmarks. And so if you don’t measure it, you don’t know. Where we are today in gastroenterology is we’re intensively concerned about quality and measuring quality in various aspects of what we do. And I think that’s a positive development.
What key achievements came out of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer?
Dr. Lieberman: This panel evolved because back in the early 2000s, each of the GI organizations were producing guidelines related to colon cancer screening and follow-up. And they were slightly different. This was an attempt to bring all the relevant groups together and try to align the guidelines and recommendations among the GI organizations so that there wouldn’t be a confusing message.
Over the history of this task force, which started around 2002, it’s been remarkably productive. The task force has really examined all aspects of colorectal cancer, including things like the bowel prep, quality of exams, high risk management, hereditary syndromes that can lead to the higher likelihood of developing colon cancer, polypectomy and polypectomy techniques, and screening and surveillance recommendations, which have evolved over time. It’s been, in my opinion, a remarkably productive task force and continues to this day. I’m so very proud of that group.
Could you give a status update on the blood and tissue repository you created for CRC research?
Dr. Lieberman: Our initial studies were part of a Veterans Affairs cooperative study, which is a mechanism of funding within the VA that allows us to work with multiple VA centers to collect data and information. At the very outset of this study, we were performing screening colonoscopies in individuals, and we decided to create a bio-repository that included blood samples, polyp tissue, and normal rectal tissue. The thinking was at some point we might be able to do some genomic studies that might help us predict which patients are most likely to develop colon polyps and colon cancer. All that happened in the 1990s. It was supported by the National Cancer Institute. We created this repository, which sat for a long period of time while we were waiting for the technology to develop and so that we could perform genomic studies in a cost-effective way.
We’re now at that point, which is really exciting. We’re beginning to look at this tissue and perform some genomic studies. Some of this data has been presented at national meetings. This was a precursor to creating a similar type of bio-repository in a larger VA cooperative study. CSP #577 Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) is a randomized study comparing two forms of screening, a fecal immunochemical test versus a colonoscopy. We’re in the process of enrolling 50,000 patients in that study. We have also created a blood and tissue repository, which we hope will be useful for future studies.
You lead the AGA CRC Task Force, which advances research and policy initiatives to improve screening rates and patient outcomes. What would you like to see in future GI research, particularly in colorectal cancer?
Dr. Lieberman: We have new blood tests coming along that are going to be very attractive to both patients and physicians. You can obtain a blood sample at a point of service and patients won’t have to deal with stool samples. We need to understand how those tests perform in clinical practice. If the test is abnormal, indicating a patient has a higher risk of colon cancer and should get a colonoscopy, are they getting that colonoscopy or not? And what are the barriers? And if it’s normal, then that patient should have a repeat test at an appropriate interval.
We know that the effectiveness of screening really depends on the participation of individuals in terms of completing the steps. We’ve published some work already on trying to understand the role of these blood tests. We expect that these tests will continue to improve over time.
We’re also working on trying to develop these risk stratification tools that could be used in clinical practice to help figure out the most appropriate test for a particular individual.
Let’s say you go to your doctor for colon cancer screening, and if we could determine that you are a low-risk individual, you may benefit best from having a non-invasive test, like a blood test or a stool test. Whereas if you’re a higher risk individual, you may need to have a more invasive screening test like colonoscopy.
This falls into a concept of personalized medicine where we’re trying to use all the information we have from the medical history, and maybe genomic information that I mentioned earlier, to try to determine who needs the most intensive screening and who might benefit from less intensive screening.
I think the most recent work is really focused on these gaps in screening. And the biggest gap are patients that get a non-invasive test, like a stool test, but do not get a colonoscopy that renders the program ineffective if they don’t get the colonoscopy. We’re trying to highlight that for primary care providers and make sure that everyone understands the importance of this follow-up. And then, trying to develop tools to help the primary care provider navigate that patient to a colonoscopy.
What do you think is the biggest misconception about your specialty?
Dr. Lieberman: If there’s a misconception, it’s that GI physicians are focused on procedures. I think a good GI provider should be holistic, and I think many are. What I mean by holistic is that many GI symptoms could be due to stress, medications, diet, or other aspects of behavior, and the remedy is not necessarily a procedure. I think that many GI physicians are really skilled at obtaining this information and trying to help guide the patient through some uncomfortable symptoms.
It means being more like an internist, spending time with the patient to take a detailed history and delve into many different possibilities that might be going on.
David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, spent much of his long career asking questions about everyday clinical practice in GI medicine and then researching ways to answer those questions.
“The answer to one question often leads to further questions. And I think that’s what makes this research so exciting and dynamic,” said Lieberman, professor emeritus with Oregon Health and Science University, where he served as chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for 24 years.
He was also instrumental in creating a blood and tissue repository for colorectal cancer (CRC) research, and a national endoscopic database.
His groundbreaking GI research in colorectal cancer screening earned him AGA’s Julius Friedenwald Medal, a top career honor. “We started off with some questions about the role of specific screening tests like colonoscopy and stool-based tests for screening,” he said. This led to the first large study about the value of screening with colonoscopy, which set the stage for current screening guidelines. Assessing more than 3,000 asymptomatic adults, Lieberman and colleagues determined that colonoscopy was more effective than sigmoidoscopy in detecting advanced colonic neoplasms.
The next phase of research focused on how well GI doctors were performing colonoscopy, asking questions about the quality of the colonoscopies being performed, and what course of action to take in polyp discovery. “We did some work related to polyp surveillance, what happens after we take out polyps and some recommendations for the appropriate length of follow up afterwards,” he summarized.
Most recently, Lieberman has centered his research on program effectiveness. “If you’re doing high quality colonoscopy and you’re doing appropriate surveillance, how effective is that? And what are the potential problems that might impair effectiveness?”
Adherence and participation remain significant challenges, he said. “If people don’t get the tests done, then they’re not going to be effective. Or if they get part of it done, there can be issues.”
In an interview, Lieberman discussed the reasons why people resist CRC screening, and the new technologies and research underway to make screening options more palatable for reluctant patients.
What do you think are the biggest deterrents to getting screened for CRC?
Dr. Lieberman: The whole idea of dealing with a stool sample is not appealing to patients. The second issue, and this has been shown in many studies, is patients who are referred for colonoscopy may resist because they have heard stories about bowel preps and about colonoscopy itself. But there are many other reasons. I mean, there are issues with access to care that are important. What if you have a positive stool test and you need to get a colonoscopy? How do you get a colonoscopy? There are barriers in moving from one test to the other in a different setting. There are issues with having to take a day off work that’s potentially a financial hardship for some patients. If you’re taking care of elderly relatives or children or if you need transportation, that’s an issue for people.
So, there are many potential barriers, and we’ve been trying to work at a national level to try to understand these barriers and then develop tools to mitigate these problems and improve the overall participation in screening.
How has the field of GI changed since you started practicing medicine?
Dr. Lieberman: I think there have been many exciting changes in technology. The endoscopes we used when I started my career were called fiberoptic scopes. These were scopes that contained tiny glass fibers that ran the length of the scope, and they were good, but not great in terms of imaging, and sometimes they would break down. We now have digital imaging that far surpasses the quality there. We’ve come a long way in terms of things like CT scans, for example, and MRI imaging. The other big technology change has been the development of minimally invasive treatments. For example, if you have a gallstone that’s in your bile duct, we now have ways to remove that without sending the patient to surgery.
The second big change has been the assessment of quality. When I started my career in gastroenterology, we were doing a lot of things, but we didn’t necessarily know if we were doing them well. Most of us thought we were doing them well, of course, but nobody was really measuring quality. There were no quality benchmarks. And so if you don’t measure it, you don’t know. Where we are today in gastroenterology is we’re intensively concerned about quality and measuring quality in various aspects of what we do. And I think that’s a positive development.
What key achievements came out of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer?
Dr. Lieberman: This panel evolved because back in the early 2000s, each of the GI organizations were producing guidelines related to colon cancer screening and follow-up. And they were slightly different. This was an attempt to bring all the relevant groups together and try to align the guidelines and recommendations among the GI organizations so that there wouldn’t be a confusing message.
Over the history of this task force, which started around 2002, it’s been remarkably productive. The task force has really examined all aspects of colorectal cancer, including things like the bowel prep, quality of exams, high risk management, hereditary syndromes that can lead to the higher likelihood of developing colon cancer, polypectomy and polypectomy techniques, and screening and surveillance recommendations, which have evolved over time. It’s been, in my opinion, a remarkably productive task force and continues to this day. I’m so very proud of that group.
Could you give a status update on the blood and tissue repository you created for CRC research?
Dr. Lieberman: Our initial studies were part of a Veterans Affairs cooperative study, which is a mechanism of funding within the VA that allows us to work with multiple VA centers to collect data and information. At the very outset of this study, we were performing screening colonoscopies in individuals, and we decided to create a bio-repository that included blood samples, polyp tissue, and normal rectal tissue. The thinking was at some point we might be able to do some genomic studies that might help us predict which patients are most likely to develop colon polyps and colon cancer. All that happened in the 1990s. It was supported by the National Cancer Institute. We created this repository, which sat for a long period of time while we were waiting for the technology to develop and so that we could perform genomic studies in a cost-effective way.
We’re now at that point, which is really exciting. We’re beginning to look at this tissue and perform some genomic studies. Some of this data has been presented at national meetings. This was a precursor to creating a similar type of bio-repository in a larger VA cooperative study. CSP #577 Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) is a randomized study comparing two forms of screening, a fecal immunochemical test versus a colonoscopy. We’re in the process of enrolling 50,000 patients in that study. We have also created a blood and tissue repository, which we hope will be useful for future studies.
You lead the AGA CRC Task Force, which advances research and policy initiatives to improve screening rates and patient outcomes. What would you like to see in future GI research, particularly in colorectal cancer?
Dr. Lieberman: We have new blood tests coming along that are going to be very attractive to both patients and physicians. You can obtain a blood sample at a point of service and patients won’t have to deal with stool samples. We need to understand how those tests perform in clinical practice. If the test is abnormal, indicating a patient has a higher risk of colon cancer and should get a colonoscopy, are they getting that colonoscopy or not? And what are the barriers? And if it’s normal, then that patient should have a repeat test at an appropriate interval.
We know that the effectiveness of screening really depends on the participation of individuals in terms of completing the steps. We’ve published some work already on trying to understand the role of these blood tests. We expect that these tests will continue to improve over time.
We’re also working on trying to develop these risk stratification tools that could be used in clinical practice to help figure out the most appropriate test for a particular individual.
Let’s say you go to your doctor for colon cancer screening, and if we could determine that you are a low-risk individual, you may benefit best from having a non-invasive test, like a blood test or a stool test. Whereas if you’re a higher risk individual, you may need to have a more invasive screening test like colonoscopy.
This falls into a concept of personalized medicine where we’re trying to use all the information we have from the medical history, and maybe genomic information that I mentioned earlier, to try to determine who needs the most intensive screening and who might benefit from less intensive screening.
I think the most recent work is really focused on these gaps in screening. And the biggest gap are patients that get a non-invasive test, like a stool test, but do not get a colonoscopy that renders the program ineffective if they don’t get the colonoscopy. We’re trying to highlight that for primary care providers and make sure that everyone understands the importance of this follow-up. And then, trying to develop tools to help the primary care provider navigate that patient to a colonoscopy.
What do you think is the biggest misconception about your specialty?
Dr. Lieberman: If there’s a misconception, it’s that GI physicians are focused on procedures. I think a good GI provider should be holistic, and I think many are. What I mean by holistic is that many GI symptoms could be due to stress, medications, diet, or other aspects of behavior, and the remedy is not necessarily a procedure. I think that many GI physicians are really skilled at obtaining this information and trying to help guide the patient through some uncomfortable symptoms.
It means being more like an internist, spending time with the patient to take a detailed history and delve into many different possibilities that might be going on.
Non-Operative Management Effective in Patients With Rectal Cancer Showing Clinical Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy
TOPLINE:
Non-operative management achieved 95% distant relapse-free survival at 30 months in patients with stage II-III rectal cancer showing a clinical complete response to total neoadjuvant therapy, while maintaining successful salvage surgery options among 15% of those who experienced local regrowth according to a phase 2 trial.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted an investigator-driven, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial enrolling 180 patients (median age, 62 years; 44% women) with stage II-III adenocarcinoma of the lower-to-middle rectum across four cancer centres in Italy from June 2018 to August 2023.
- Treatment consisted of induction chemotherapy with 4 cycles of capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks), followed by chemoradiotherapy with 50-54 Gy in 25 fractions for 5 weeks.
- The analysis included 179 evaluable patients: 47 (26%) who achieved a clinical complete response were assigned to nonoperative management, 107 (60%) underwent surgery after therapy, and 18 (10%) underwent surgery after study discontinuation.
- The primary outcome was 30-month distant relapse-free survival in the non-operative management group, and secondary outcomes included local relapse-free or regrowth-free survival (local regrowth after non-operative management and local relapse after surgery).
TAKEAWAY:
- After a median follow-up of 35 months, 30-month distant relapse-free survival reached 95% in the non-operative management group vs 74% in the surgery group and 74% in the overall population.
- Among patients undergoing non-operative management, 15% experienced tumour regrowth in the rectal wall within 2 years, corresponding to a 2-year risk for local regrowth of 17%, and cumulative risks for local relapse were 11% at 2 years and 16% at 3 years among those in the surgery group.
- The most common adverse events of grade 3-4 were diarrhoea (4%), lymphopenia (4%), and neutropenia (4%). Overall, 17% of patients had a serious adverse event, with bowel obstruction (4%) and thromboembolism (3%) being the most common adverse events.
- Circulating tumour DNA positivity after total neoadjuvant therapy showed significant prognostic value, with the positive status associated with worse distant relapse-free survival (P = .0032) and progression-free survival (P = .0028) among patients in the non-operative management group.
IN PRACTICE:
“Nonoperative management ensures excellent distant disease control with organ preservation after clinical complete response,” the authors wrote. “As a watch-and-wait approach becomes a recognised standard in international guidelines, the integration of ctDNA [circulating tumour DNA] and possibly other novel biomarkers, adds a crucial dimension to risk stratification and underscores the potential for personalised treatment approaches,” they added.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Alessio Amatu, MD, and Giorgio Patelli, MD, Niguarda Cancer Center, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy. It was published online in The Lancet Oncology .
LIMITATIONS:
This study was powered only to estimate 30-month distant relapse-free survival for the non-operative management group, potentially limiting statistical power for subgroup and molecular analyses. The single-arm design without randomisation did not directly address whether rectal surgery might provide added value in cases of clinical complete response. The specific induction-based total neoadjuvant therapy strategy used might not have fully reflected evolving practices. Additionally, the racial homogeneity of the study population limited generalisability beyond predominantly White populations.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Fondazione AIRC ETS, Fondazione Oncologia Niguarda ETS, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Ministero della Salute, and AIRC 5xMille 2018. Several authors reported receiving grants or honoraria and having other ties with various sources. Full disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Non-operative management achieved 95% distant relapse-free survival at 30 months in patients with stage II-III rectal cancer showing a clinical complete response to total neoadjuvant therapy, while maintaining successful salvage surgery options among 15% of those who experienced local regrowth according to a phase 2 trial.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted an investigator-driven, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial enrolling 180 patients (median age, 62 years; 44% women) with stage II-III adenocarcinoma of the lower-to-middle rectum across four cancer centres in Italy from June 2018 to August 2023.
- Treatment consisted of induction chemotherapy with 4 cycles of capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks), followed by chemoradiotherapy with 50-54 Gy in 25 fractions for 5 weeks.
- The analysis included 179 evaluable patients: 47 (26%) who achieved a clinical complete response were assigned to nonoperative management, 107 (60%) underwent surgery after therapy, and 18 (10%) underwent surgery after study discontinuation.
- The primary outcome was 30-month distant relapse-free survival in the non-operative management group, and secondary outcomes included local relapse-free or regrowth-free survival (local regrowth after non-operative management and local relapse after surgery).
TAKEAWAY:
- After a median follow-up of 35 months, 30-month distant relapse-free survival reached 95% in the non-operative management group vs 74% in the surgery group and 74% in the overall population.
- Among patients undergoing non-operative management, 15% experienced tumour regrowth in the rectal wall within 2 years, corresponding to a 2-year risk for local regrowth of 17%, and cumulative risks for local relapse were 11% at 2 years and 16% at 3 years among those in the surgery group.
- The most common adverse events of grade 3-4 were diarrhoea (4%), lymphopenia (4%), and neutropenia (4%). Overall, 17% of patients had a serious adverse event, with bowel obstruction (4%) and thromboembolism (3%) being the most common adverse events.
- Circulating tumour DNA positivity after total neoadjuvant therapy showed significant prognostic value, with the positive status associated with worse distant relapse-free survival (P = .0032) and progression-free survival (P = .0028) among patients in the non-operative management group.
IN PRACTICE:
“Nonoperative management ensures excellent distant disease control with organ preservation after clinical complete response,” the authors wrote. “As a watch-and-wait approach becomes a recognised standard in international guidelines, the integration of ctDNA [circulating tumour DNA] and possibly other novel biomarkers, adds a crucial dimension to risk stratification and underscores the potential for personalised treatment approaches,” they added.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Alessio Amatu, MD, and Giorgio Patelli, MD, Niguarda Cancer Center, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy. It was published online in The Lancet Oncology .
LIMITATIONS:
This study was powered only to estimate 30-month distant relapse-free survival for the non-operative management group, potentially limiting statistical power for subgroup and molecular analyses. The single-arm design without randomisation did not directly address whether rectal surgery might provide added value in cases of clinical complete response. The specific induction-based total neoadjuvant therapy strategy used might not have fully reflected evolving practices. Additionally, the racial homogeneity of the study population limited generalisability beyond predominantly White populations.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Fondazione AIRC ETS, Fondazione Oncologia Niguarda ETS, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Ministero della Salute, and AIRC 5xMille 2018. Several authors reported receiving grants or honoraria and having other ties with various sources. Full disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Non-operative management achieved 95% distant relapse-free survival at 30 months in patients with stage II-III rectal cancer showing a clinical complete response to total neoadjuvant therapy, while maintaining successful salvage surgery options among 15% of those who experienced local regrowth according to a phase 2 trial.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted an investigator-driven, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial enrolling 180 patients (median age, 62 years; 44% women) with stage II-III adenocarcinoma of the lower-to-middle rectum across four cancer centres in Italy from June 2018 to August 2023.
- Treatment consisted of induction chemotherapy with 4 cycles of capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks), followed by chemoradiotherapy with 50-54 Gy in 25 fractions for 5 weeks.
- The analysis included 179 evaluable patients: 47 (26%) who achieved a clinical complete response were assigned to nonoperative management, 107 (60%) underwent surgery after therapy, and 18 (10%) underwent surgery after study discontinuation.
- The primary outcome was 30-month distant relapse-free survival in the non-operative management group, and secondary outcomes included local relapse-free or regrowth-free survival (local regrowth after non-operative management and local relapse after surgery).
TAKEAWAY:
- After a median follow-up of 35 months, 30-month distant relapse-free survival reached 95% in the non-operative management group vs 74% in the surgery group and 74% in the overall population.
- Among patients undergoing non-operative management, 15% experienced tumour regrowth in the rectal wall within 2 years, corresponding to a 2-year risk for local regrowth of 17%, and cumulative risks for local relapse were 11% at 2 years and 16% at 3 years among those in the surgery group.
- The most common adverse events of grade 3-4 were diarrhoea (4%), lymphopenia (4%), and neutropenia (4%). Overall, 17% of patients had a serious adverse event, with bowel obstruction (4%) and thromboembolism (3%) being the most common adverse events.
- Circulating tumour DNA positivity after total neoadjuvant therapy showed significant prognostic value, with the positive status associated with worse distant relapse-free survival (P = .0032) and progression-free survival (P = .0028) among patients in the non-operative management group.
IN PRACTICE:
“Nonoperative management ensures excellent distant disease control with organ preservation after clinical complete response,” the authors wrote. “As a watch-and-wait approach becomes a recognised standard in international guidelines, the integration of ctDNA [circulating tumour DNA] and possibly other novel biomarkers, adds a crucial dimension to risk stratification and underscores the potential for personalised treatment approaches,” they added.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Alessio Amatu, MD, and Giorgio Patelli, MD, Niguarda Cancer Center, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy. It was published online in The Lancet Oncology .
LIMITATIONS:
This study was powered only to estimate 30-month distant relapse-free survival for the non-operative management group, potentially limiting statistical power for subgroup and molecular analyses. The single-arm design without randomisation did not directly address whether rectal surgery might provide added value in cases of clinical complete response. The specific induction-based total neoadjuvant therapy strategy used might not have fully reflected evolving practices. Additionally, the racial homogeneity of the study population limited generalisability beyond predominantly White populations.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Fondazione AIRC ETS, Fondazione Oncologia Niguarda ETS, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Ministero della Salute, and AIRC 5xMille 2018. Several authors reported receiving grants or honoraria and having other ties with various sources. Full disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Not a Professional Degree? A New Federal Policy Could Exacerbate the Nursing Shortage
The statistics are shocking: 138,000 registered nurses (RNs) have left the workforce since 2022 and at least 40% plan to retire or leave the profession in the next 5 years — and new updates from the Department of Education could make the national nursing crisis even worse.
The reason? Nursing is no longer considered a professional degree.
A recent Department of Education rulemaking session omitted advanced nursing programs (as well as physician assistance programs, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology, social work, and public health programs) from the definition of professional degrees and limited the amount of student loan funding available to pursue advanced practice degrees like Master of Science in Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice.
“We have a primary care crisis in this country,” said Deborah Trautman PhD, RN, president and chief executive officer of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). “The omission is not only harmful for nursing; the omission is not good for anyone who needs healthcare.”
Limiting Loan Access
The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the Grad PLUS student loan program and amended the list of professional degrees to exclude advanced practice nursing. Although the change doesn’t affect the licensure or legal standing of nurses, it alters access to financial aid and limits advanced education opportunities.
Starting on July 1, 2026, graduate students will be limited to a total of $100,000 in federal student loans, a decrease from the previous cap of $138,500 but loan caps for graduate students in professional degree programs will increase to $200,000. The changes led the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators to declare, “Many will be shut out of graduate education.”
“It would force people who need loan support and don’t have a sufficient amount through a federal loan to seek [private loans], but federal loans have better interest rates and/or other conditions, and some students may not qualify for the private loans,” Trautman said. “The risk then is that students may not pursue these advanced nursing degrees because of the financial barriers that they will face.”
The Department of Education disagrees. In a statement, the federal department said, “Placing a cap on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programs to reduce their program costs, ensuring that nurses will not be saddled with unmanageable student loan debt.” So far, Trautman has seen “no evidence” that limiting access to advanced nursing programs would reduce tuition costs.
Industry-Wide Impacts
Trautman worries that omitting nursing from the list of professional degrees will reduce access to care.
Nurse practitioners are providing primary care in rural and underserved areas; certified registered nurse anesthetists make up more than 50% of anesthesia providers in the US (a number that jumps to 80% in rural areas); and the percentage of births attended by certified nurse midwives is growing fast.
“These are nurses…who are working to achieve better patient outcomes and to make the health system work better for all of us,” Trautman said. “And we would be compromising this workforce that is so critical to our nation.”
Limiting the federal student loan borrowing cap for advanced nursing degrees could also exacerbate the nursing faculty shortage. In 2023, more than 65,000 qualified applicants were denied admission to baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs; insufficient number of faculty was the top reason.
Colleges depend on nurses with advanced degrees to fill faculty vacancies. In fact, more than 80% of open positions required or preferred a doctoral degree, according to AACN. Removing nursing from the list of professional degree programs and limiting access to student loans will make it even harder to fill vacancies, limiting the number of new nurses entering the profession.
“We’re finalizing the results of [a new national survey] that showed overwhelming feedback from our member deans and students who believe enrollment in advanced nursing programs is going be impacted,” said Trautman. “We’re going to see the faculty shortage worsen; we’re going see increased financial burdens to our students, and we believe it’s going to undermine the stability of the healthcare workforce.”
Industry associations, including the American Nurses Association, American Academy of Nursing, and American Organization for Nursing Leadership have released statements opposing the change and advocating for graduate nursing degrees to be added to the list of professional programs. Trautman hopes that public pressure and cross-sector support will lead the Department of Education to reverse its current position.
“It’s the wrong decision,” she said. “There is an opportunity to make this right, and that is to include nursing on that professional list.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The statistics are shocking: 138,000 registered nurses (RNs) have left the workforce since 2022 and at least 40% plan to retire or leave the profession in the next 5 years — and new updates from the Department of Education could make the national nursing crisis even worse.
The reason? Nursing is no longer considered a professional degree.
A recent Department of Education rulemaking session omitted advanced nursing programs (as well as physician assistance programs, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology, social work, and public health programs) from the definition of professional degrees and limited the amount of student loan funding available to pursue advanced practice degrees like Master of Science in Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice.
“We have a primary care crisis in this country,” said Deborah Trautman PhD, RN, president and chief executive officer of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). “The omission is not only harmful for nursing; the omission is not good for anyone who needs healthcare.”
Limiting Loan Access
The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the Grad PLUS student loan program and amended the list of professional degrees to exclude advanced practice nursing. Although the change doesn’t affect the licensure or legal standing of nurses, it alters access to financial aid and limits advanced education opportunities.
Starting on July 1, 2026, graduate students will be limited to a total of $100,000 in federal student loans, a decrease from the previous cap of $138,500 but loan caps for graduate students in professional degree programs will increase to $200,000. The changes led the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators to declare, “Many will be shut out of graduate education.”
“It would force people who need loan support and don’t have a sufficient amount through a federal loan to seek [private loans], but federal loans have better interest rates and/or other conditions, and some students may not qualify for the private loans,” Trautman said. “The risk then is that students may not pursue these advanced nursing degrees because of the financial barriers that they will face.”
The Department of Education disagrees. In a statement, the federal department said, “Placing a cap on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programs to reduce their program costs, ensuring that nurses will not be saddled with unmanageable student loan debt.” So far, Trautman has seen “no evidence” that limiting access to advanced nursing programs would reduce tuition costs.
Industry-Wide Impacts
Trautman worries that omitting nursing from the list of professional degrees will reduce access to care.
Nurse practitioners are providing primary care in rural and underserved areas; certified registered nurse anesthetists make up more than 50% of anesthesia providers in the US (a number that jumps to 80% in rural areas); and the percentage of births attended by certified nurse midwives is growing fast.
“These are nurses…who are working to achieve better patient outcomes and to make the health system work better for all of us,” Trautman said. “And we would be compromising this workforce that is so critical to our nation.”
Limiting the federal student loan borrowing cap for advanced nursing degrees could also exacerbate the nursing faculty shortage. In 2023, more than 65,000 qualified applicants were denied admission to baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs; insufficient number of faculty was the top reason.
Colleges depend on nurses with advanced degrees to fill faculty vacancies. In fact, more than 80% of open positions required or preferred a doctoral degree, according to AACN. Removing nursing from the list of professional degree programs and limiting access to student loans will make it even harder to fill vacancies, limiting the number of new nurses entering the profession.
“We’re finalizing the results of [a new national survey] that showed overwhelming feedback from our member deans and students who believe enrollment in advanced nursing programs is going be impacted,” said Trautman. “We’re going to see the faculty shortage worsen; we’re going see increased financial burdens to our students, and we believe it’s going to undermine the stability of the healthcare workforce.”
Industry associations, including the American Nurses Association, American Academy of Nursing, and American Organization for Nursing Leadership have released statements opposing the change and advocating for graduate nursing degrees to be added to the list of professional programs. Trautman hopes that public pressure and cross-sector support will lead the Department of Education to reverse its current position.
“It’s the wrong decision,” she said. “There is an opportunity to make this right, and that is to include nursing on that professional list.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The statistics are shocking: 138,000 registered nurses (RNs) have left the workforce since 2022 and at least 40% plan to retire or leave the profession in the next 5 years — and new updates from the Department of Education could make the national nursing crisis even worse.
The reason? Nursing is no longer considered a professional degree.
A recent Department of Education rulemaking session omitted advanced nursing programs (as well as physician assistance programs, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology, social work, and public health programs) from the definition of professional degrees and limited the amount of student loan funding available to pursue advanced practice degrees like Master of Science in Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice.
“We have a primary care crisis in this country,” said Deborah Trautman PhD, RN, president and chief executive officer of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). “The omission is not only harmful for nursing; the omission is not good for anyone who needs healthcare.”
Limiting Loan Access
The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the Grad PLUS student loan program and amended the list of professional degrees to exclude advanced practice nursing. Although the change doesn’t affect the licensure or legal standing of nurses, it alters access to financial aid and limits advanced education opportunities.
Starting on July 1, 2026, graduate students will be limited to a total of $100,000 in federal student loans, a decrease from the previous cap of $138,500 but loan caps for graduate students in professional degree programs will increase to $200,000. The changes led the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators to declare, “Many will be shut out of graduate education.”
“It would force people who need loan support and don’t have a sufficient amount through a federal loan to seek [private loans], but federal loans have better interest rates and/or other conditions, and some students may not qualify for the private loans,” Trautman said. “The risk then is that students may not pursue these advanced nursing degrees because of the financial barriers that they will face.”
The Department of Education disagrees. In a statement, the federal department said, “Placing a cap on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programs to reduce their program costs, ensuring that nurses will not be saddled with unmanageable student loan debt.” So far, Trautman has seen “no evidence” that limiting access to advanced nursing programs would reduce tuition costs.
Industry-Wide Impacts
Trautman worries that omitting nursing from the list of professional degrees will reduce access to care.
Nurse practitioners are providing primary care in rural and underserved areas; certified registered nurse anesthetists make up more than 50% of anesthesia providers in the US (a number that jumps to 80% in rural areas); and the percentage of births attended by certified nurse midwives is growing fast.
“These are nurses…who are working to achieve better patient outcomes and to make the health system work better for all of us,” Trautman said. “And we would be compromising this workforce that is so critical to our nation.”
Limiting the federal student loan borrowing cap for advanced nursing degrees could also exacerbate the nursing faculty shortage. In 2023, more than 65,000 qualified applicants were denied admission to baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs; insufficient number of faculty was the top reason.
Colleges depend on nurses with advanced degrees to fill faculty vacancies. In fact, more than 80% of open positions required or preferred a doctoral degree, according to AACN. Removing nursing from the list of professional degree programs and limiting access to student loans will make it even harder to fill vacancies, limiting the number of new nurses entering the profession.
“We’re finalizing the results of [a new national survey] that showed overwhelming feedback from our member deans and students who believe enrollment in advanced nursing programs is going be impacted,” said Trautman. “We’re going to see the faculty shortage worsen; we’re going see increased financial burdens to our students, and we believe it’s going to undermine the stability of the healthcare workforce.”
Industry associations, including the American Nurses Association, American Academy of Nursing, and American Organization for Nursing Leadership have released statements opposing the change and advocating for graduate nursing degrees to be added to the list of professional programs. Trautman hopes that public pressure and cross-sector support will lead the Department of Education to reverse its current position.
“It’s the wrong decision,” she said. “There is an opportunity to make this right, and that is to include nursing on that professional list.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Neuropathic Pain in Cancer: A Personalised Approach
Neuropathic pain in individuals with cancer remains a challenging clinical problem that requires advanced pharmacologic skills and a clear understanding of the molecular mechanisms that drive it.
At the 32nd Annual Congress of the Italian Society of Palliative Care, 3 experts outlined an updated framework that begins with basic biology and leads to the most appropriate therapeutic choice.
Fibre Reprogramming
Diego Maria Michele Fornasari, professor of pharmacology and director of the Postgraduate School of Specialization in Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology at the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, outlined how a healthy nerve fibre becomes chronically hyperexcitable.
“The pathogenic mechanisms of pain, even though we experience hundreds of different pains, can be counted on the fingers of one hand,” he said.
In oncology, nerve injury caused by tumour compression, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy initiates a molecular cascade that reshapes the nerve fibre.
“The injured area is reprogrammed because the neuron attempts to regenerate, and to regenerate it must express proteins seen during embryonic life,” Fornasari said.
This process leads to the appearance of embryonic sodium channels (particularly Nav1.3), which impart abnormally high electrical activity to neurones.
The second mechanism involves the loss of a protective physiologic feature, namely, intermittent failure of signal conduction. Under normal conditions, occasional conduction failures reduce pain intensity. In neuropathic pain, overexpression of hyperpolarisation–activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channels, the same channels that govern sinoatrial node automaticity, makes the neuron hyperexcitable and unable to modulate transmission. The result is that “all stimuli reach the spinal cord and the central nervous system.”
Fornasari illustrated the concerns regarding pain in bone metastases. “The tumour cell is an intelligent cell, capable of producing substances that can interfere with nociceptive mechanisms,” he said.
He also highlighted the mechanisms of pain in patients with bone metastases. Prostate cancer cells that metastasised to the bone that produce tumour cells produce large amounts of nerve growth factor, which does not promote growth in adult neurones but causes hypertrophy and sprouting of nerve fibres. “Each of these ‘spikes’ is actually a neuropathic lesion of the fibre,” Fornasari explained, clarifying how this mechanism contributes to the often-devastating intensity of pain from bone metastases.
Diagnostic Precision
Francesca Dina Ricchini, oncologist and palliative care specialist working in the Palliative Care Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Milan, Italy, addressed the translation of molecular knowledge into clinical diagnosis. “It is very important to be able to translate these concepts into diagnostic tools,” she said.
Neuropathic involvement affects approximately 40% of individuals with cancer, with 20% presenting with pure neuropathic pain and another 20% with mixed pain.
Approximately 75% of cases are related to the disease itself, and the remainder are related to oncologic treatments. Despite its prevalence, neuropathic pain remains underdiagnosed, contributing to suboptimal analgesia and an impaired quality of life.
Screening tools such as PainDETECT, DN4, and the LANSS scale can support assessment, but Ricchini cautioned that “they are tools that can be used as aids but do not make a diagnosis on their own and have not been validated in oncology patients.”
She noted that quantitative sensory testing (QST) complements clinical judgement by quantifying sensory thresholds for thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli, aiding in the identification of neuropathic pain mechanisms, particularly in oncology settings. QST can complement clinical judgement and diagnostic algorithms developed by the International Association for the Study of Pain to help clinicians systematically identify neuropathic components.
“The key is to start from symptoms, what the patient tells us,” Ricchini added.
However, bedside assessments remain essential. Simple tool needles, cotton, and the clinician’s thumb allow the evaluation of hyperalgesia, allodynia, and other neuropathic features of the affected area. With careful history taking and physical examination, clinicians can often reach an accurate diagnosis without complex testing.
Opioid Use
Sebastiano Mercadante, director of the Anesthesia & Intensive Care and Pain Relief and Supportive Care Unit in La Maddalena Cancer Center Palermo at the University of Palermo in Palermo, Italy, discussed opioid therapy in neuropathic pain. “Responsiveness to opioid drugs varies from patient to patient,” he said.
Opioids develop tolerance and have a ceiling effect that is driven by adverse events. Mercadante emphasised the need to “optimise their use” by staying within the therapeutic window where the benefits outweigh the harm.
Responsiveness depends on genetic polymorphisms affecting receptors and metabolism, pain patterns, age, sex, and psychological distress. “Those with the worst response are patients with significant psychological distress,” he noted.
The opioid escalation index helps to stratify patients. Slow escalation predicts a better prognosis, whereas rapid escalation should prompt specialist involvement and evaluation of factors such as delirium, anxiety, and depression in patients.
Drug Strategies
Switching opioids can be helpful when they become less effective. Mercadante explained that switching opioids “can facilitate receptor internalisation, excluding from continuous stimulation,” allowing “receptor refreshing” and allowing an overstimulated system to be cleared and restoring analgesia. Switching to methadone, when conducted by experienced clinicians, often yields substantial benefits for patients.
Fornasari clarified the mechanisms of action of gabapentinoids, which act on the alpha-2-delta subunit of calcium channels by restoring normal channel numbers rather than by closing them. This distinction is important because it is a slow mechanism that requires approximately 2 weeks for full effect, which is crucial information for clinicians who often discontinue treatment prematurely after a few days of treatment.
Antidepressants, including amitriptyline and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, strengthen descending inhibitory pathways by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline levels.
Fornasari also mentioned desvenlafaxine, the active metabolite of venlafaxine, which “has greater activity on descending noradrenergic pathways” and could be particularly useful when the predominant component is noradrenergic.
Topical Options
Capsaicin is an option for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.
Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, the expert explained, is related to the overexpression of transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1, also known as the capsaicin receptor. Topical capsaicin abnormally stimulates these receptors, causing a massive influx of calcium that “defunctionalises the fibre” for periods ranging from a week to 2 months.
Clinical Takeaways
Therefore, neuropathic pain, particularly in patients with cancer, requires a multimodal approach that begins with an understanding of the molecular mechanisms to develop personalised treatment options. As Fornasari concluded, “Often, a lack of knowledge of a drug’s mechanism of action leads to its inappropriate, and ultimately ineffective, use.” The challenge for clinicians is to translate this knowledge into tangible improvements for patients, remembering that each patient is unique and requires personalised care that goes beyond standardised protocols.
Clinicians aim to translate these insights into meaningful relief, recognising that each patient requires tailored care.
Practical Guidance
- Accurate diagnosis: Screening tools should only be used as support, and decisions should be on the basis of a detailed history and physical examination. In individuals with cancer, the interview always began with the patient’s account.
- Recognising negative prognostic factors: Neuropathic pain, incident pain, psychological distress, delirium, and unrealistic expectations indicate a more difficult course and require a more intensive approach.
- Opioids should be used wisely: Dose escalation should be monitored, rotation should be considered when needed, and psychological factors should be assessed throughout care. As experts have noted, clinicians should try at least 2 or 3 opioids and at least 2 routes of administration before considering invasive procedures.
- Integrating adjuvant medicines early: Gabapentin and other antidepressants are not third-line treatments for individuals with cancer. Adequately dosed for at least 2 weeks to allow therapeutic benefit.
- Consider topical options: In localised peripheral neuropathies, capsaicin can be a valid addition to treatment.
- Use of non-opioid medicines: Some individuals respond exceptionally well to anti-inflammatory agents, with effects that can match those of high morphine doses.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, part of the this news organization Professional Network.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Neuropathic pain in individuals with cancer remains a challenging clinical problem that requires advanced pharmacologic skills and a clear understanding of the molecular mechanisms that drive it.
At the 32nd Annual Congress of the Italian Society of Palliative Care, 3 experts outlined an updated framework that begins with basic biology and leads to the most appropriate therapeutic choice.
Fibre Reprogramming
Diego Maria Michele Fornasari, professor of pharmacology and director of the Postgraduate School of Specialization in Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology at the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, outlined how a healthy nerve fibre becomes chronically hyperexcitable.
“The pathogenic mechanisms of pain, even though we experience hundreds of different pains, can be counted on the fingers of one hand,” he said.
In oncology, nerve injury caused by tumour compression, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy initiates a molecular cascade that reshapes the nerve fibre.
“The injured area is reprogrammed because the neuron attempts to regenerate, and to regenerate it must express proteins seen during embryonic life,” Fornasari said.
This process leads to the appearance of embryonic sodium channels (particularly Nav1.3), which impart abnormally high electrical activity to neurones.
The second mechanism involves the loss of a protective physiologic feature, namely, intermittent failure of signal conduction. Under normal conditions, occasional conduction failures reduce pain intensity. In neuropathic pain, overexpression of hyperpolarisation–activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channels, the same channels that govern sinoatrial node automaticity, makes the neuron hyperexcitable and unable to modulate transmission. The result is that “all stimuli reach the spinal cord and the central nervous system.”
Fornasari illustrated the concerns regarding pain in bone metastases. “The tumour cell is an intelligent cell, capable of producing substances that can interfere with nociceptive mechanisms,” he said.
He also highlighted the mechanisms of pain in patients with bone metastases. Prostate cancer cells that metastasised to the bone that produce tumour cells produce large amounts of nerve growth factor, which does not promote growth in adult neurones but causes hypertrophy and sprouting of nerve fibres. “Each of these ‘spikes’ is actually a neuropathic lesion of the fibre,” Fornasari explained, clarifying how this mechanism contributes to the often-devastating intensity of pain from bone metastases.
Diagnostic Precision
Francesca Dina Ricchini, oncologist and palliative care specialist working in the Palliative Care Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Milan, Italy, addressed the translation of molecular knowledge into clinical diagnosis. “It is very important to be able to translate these concepts into diagnostic tools,” she said.
Neuropathic involvement affects approximately 40% of individuals with cancer, with 20% presenting with pure neuropathic pain and another 20% with mixed pain.
Approximately 75% of cases are related to the disease itself, and the remainder are related to oncologic treatments. Despite its prevalence, neuropathic pain remains underdiagnosed, contributing to suboptimal analgesia and an impaired quality of life.
Screening tools such as PainDETECT, DN4, and the LANSS scale can support assessment, but Ricchini cautioned that “they are tools that can be used as aids but do not make a diagnosis on their own and have not been validated in oncology patients.”
She noted that quantitative sensory testing (QST) complements clinical judgement by quantifying sensory thresholds for thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli, aiding in the identification of neuropathic pain mechanisms, particularly in oncology settings. QST can complement clinical judgement and diagnostic algorithms developed by the International Association for the Study of Pain to help clinicians systematically identify neuropathic components.
“The key is to start from symptoms, what the patient tells us,” Ricchini added.
However, bedside assessments remain essential. Simple tool needles, cotton, and the clinician’s thumb allow the evaluation of hyperalgesia, allodynia, and other neuropathic features of the affected area. With careful history taking and physical examination, clinicians can often reach an accurate diagnosis without complex testing.
Opioid Use
Sebastiano Mercadante, director of the Anesthesia & Intensive Care and Pain Relief and Supportive Care Unit in La Maddalena Cancer Center Palermo at the University of Palermo in Palermo, Italy, discussed opioid therapy in neuropathic pain. “Responsiveness to opioid drugs varies from patient to patient,” he said.
Opioids develop tolerance and have a ceiling effect that is driven by adverse events. Mercadante emphasised the need to “optimise their use” by staying within the therapeutic window where the benefits outweigh the harm.
Responsiveness depends on genetic polymorphisms affecting receptors and metabolism, pain patterns, age, sex, and psychological distress. “Those with the worst response are patients with significant psychological distress,” he noted.
The opioid escalation index helps to stratify patients. Slow escalation predicts a better prognosis, whereas rapid escalation should prompt specialist involvement and evaluation of factors such as delirium, anxiety, and depression in patients.
Drug Strategies
Switching opioids can be helpful when they become less effective. Mercadante explained that switching opioids “can facilitate receptor internalisation, excluding from continuous stimulation,” allowing “receptor refreshing” and allowing an overstimulated system to be cleared and restoring analgesia. Switching to methadone, when conducted by experienced clinicians, often yields substantial benefits for patients.
Fornasari clarified the mechanisms of action of gabapentinoids, which act on the alpha-2-delta subunit of calcium channels by restoring normal channel numbers rather than by closing them. This distinction is important because it is a slow mechanism that requires approximately 2 weeks for full effect, which is crucial information for clinicians who often discontinue treatment prematurely after a few days of treatment.
Antidepressants, including amitriptyline and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, strengthen descending inhibitory pathways by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline levels.
Fornasari also mentioned desvenlafaxine, the active metabolite of venlafaxine, which “has greater activity on descending noradrenergic pathways” and could be particularly useful when the predominant component is noradrenergic.
Topical Options
Capsaicin is an option for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.
Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, the expert explained, is related to the overexpression of transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1, also known as the capsaicin receptor. Topical capsaicin abnormally stimulates these receptors, causing a massive influx of calcium that “defunctionalises the fibre” for periods ranging from a week to 2 months.
Clinical Takeaways
Therefore, neuropathic pain, particularly in patients with cancer, requires a multimodal approach that begins with an understanding of the molecular mechanisms to develop personalised treatment options. As Fornasari concluded, “Often, a lack of knowledge of a drug’s mechanism of action leads to its inappropriate, and ultimately ineffective, use.” The challenge for clinicians is to translate this knowledge into tangible improvements for patients, remembering that each patient is unique and requires personalised care that goes beyond standardised protocols.
Clinicians aim to translate these insights into meaningful relief, recognising that each patient requires tailored care.
Practical Guidance
- Accurate diagnosis: Screening tools should only be used as support, and decisions should be on the basis of a detailed history and physical examination. In individuals with cancer, the interview always began with the patient’s account.
- Recognising negative prognostic factors: Neuropathic pain, incident pain, psychological distress, delirium, and unrealistic expectations indicate a more difficult course and require a more intensive approach.
- Opioids should be used wisely: Dose escalation should be monitored, rotation should be considered when needed, and psychological factors should be assessed throughout care. As experts have noted, clinicians should try at least 2 or 3 opioids and at least 2 routes of administration before considering invasive procedures.
- Integrating adjuvant medicines early: Gabapentin and other antidepressants are not third-line treatments for individuals with cancer. Adequately dosed for at least 2 weeks to allow therapeutic benefit.
- Consider topical options: In localised peripheral neuropathies, capsaicin can be a valid addition to treatment.
- Use of non-opioid medicines: Some individuals respond exceptionally well to anti-inflammatory agents, with effects that can match those of high morphine doses.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, part of the this news organization Professional Network.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Neuropathic pain in individuals with cancer remains a challenging clinical problem that requires advanced pharmacologic skills and a clear understanding of the molecular mechanisms that drive it.
At the 32nd Annual Congress of the Italian Society of Palliative Care, 3 experts outlined an updated framework that begins with basic biology and leads to the most appropriate therapeutic choice.
Fibre Reprogramming
Diego Maria Michele Fornasari, professor of pharmacology and director of the Postgraduate School of Specialization in Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology at the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, outlined how a healthy nerve fibre becomes chronically hyperexcitable.
“The pathogenic mechanisms of pain, even though we experience hundreds of different pains, can be counted on the fingers of one hand,” he said.
In oncology, nerve injury caused by tumour compression, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy initiates a molecular cascade that reshapes the nerve fibre.
“The injured area is reprogrammed because the neuron attempts to regenerate, and to regenerate it must express proteins seen during embryonic life,” Fornasari said.
This process leads to the appearance of embryonic sodium channels (particularly Nav1.3), which impart abnormally high electrical activity to neurones.
The second mechanism involves the loss of a protective physiologic feature, namely, intermittent failure of signal conduction. Under normal conditions, occasional conduction failures reduce pain intensity. In neuropathic pain, overexpression of hyperpolarisation–activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channels, the same channels that govern sinoatrial node automaticity, makes the neuron hyperexcitable and unable to modulate transmission. The result is that “all stimuli reach the spinal cord and the central nervous system.”
Fornasari illustrated the concerns regarding pain in bone metastases. “The tumour cell is an intelligent cell, capable of producing substances that can interfere with nociceptive mechanisms,” he said.
He also highlighted the mechanisms of pain in patients with bone metastases. Prostate cancer cells that metastasised to the bone that produce tumour cells produce large amounts of nerve growth factor, which does not promote growth in adult neurones but causes hypertrophy and sprouting of nerve fibres. “Each of these ‘spikes’ is actually a neuropathic lesion of the fibre,” Fornasari explained, clarifying how this mechanism contributes to the often-devastating intensity of pain from bone metastases.
Diagnostic Precision
Francesca Dina Ricchini, oncologist and palliative care specialist working in the Palliative Care Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Milan, Italy, addressed the translation of molecular knowledge into clinical diagnosis. “It is very important to be able to translate these concepts into diagnostic tools,” she said.
Neuropathic involvement affects approximately 40% of individuals with cancer, with 20% presenting with pure neuropathic pain and another 20% with mixed pain.
Approximately 75% of cases are related to the disease itself, and the remainder are related to oncologic treatments. Despite its prevalence, neuropathic pain remains underdiagnosed, contributing to suboptimal analgesia and an impaired quality of life.
Screening tools such as PainDETECT, DN4, and the LANSS scale can support assessment, but Ricchini cautioned that “they are tools that can be used as aids but do not make a diagnosis on their own and have not been validated in oncology patients.”
She noted that quantitative sensory testing (QST) complements clinical judgement by quantifying sensory thresholds for thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli, aiding in the identification of neuropathic pain mechanisms, particularly in oncology settings. QST can complement clinical judgement and diagnostic algorithms developed by the International Association for the Study of Pain to help clinicians systematically identify neuropathic components.
“The key is to start from symptoms, what the patient tells us,” Ricchini added.
However, bedside assessments remain essential. Simple tool needles, cotton, and the clinician’s thumb allow the evaluation of hyperalgesia, allodynia, and other neuropathic features of the affected area. With careful history taking and physical examination, clinicians can often reach an accurate diagnosis without complex testing.
Opioid Use
Sebastiano Mercadante, director of the Anesthesia & Intensive Care and Pain Relief and Supportive Care Unit in La Maddalena Cancer Center Palermo at the University of Palermo in Palermo, Italy, discussed opioid therapy in neuropathic pain. “Responsiveness to opioid drugs varies from patient to patient,” he said.
Opioids develop tolerance and have a ceiling effect that is driven by adverse events. Mercadante emphasised the need to “optimise their use” by staying within the therapeutic window where the benefits outweigh the harm.
Responsiveness depends on genetic polymorphisms affecting receptors and metabolism, pain patterns, age, sex, and psychological distress. “Those with the worst response are patients with significant psychological distress,” he noted.
The opioid escalation index helps to stratify patients. Slow escalation predicts a better prognosis, whereas rapid escalation should prompt specialist involvement and evaluation of factors such as delirium, anxiety, and depression in patients.
Drug Strategies
Switching opioids can be helpful when they become less effective. Mercadante explained that switching opioids “can facilitate receptor internalisation, excluding from continuous stimulation,” allowing “receptor refreshing” and allowing an overstimulated system to be cleared and restoring analgesia. Switching to methadone, when conducted by experienced clinicians, often yields substantial benefits for patients.
Fornasari clarified the mechanisms of action of gabapentinoids, which act on the alpha-2-delta subunit of calcium channels by restoring normal channel numbers rather than by closing them. This distinction is important because it is a slow mechanism that requires approximately 2 weeks for full effect, which is crucial information for clinicians who often discontinue treatment prematurely after a few days of treatment.
Antidepressants, including amitriptyline and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, strengthen descending inhibitory pathways by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline levels.
Fornasari also mentioned desvenlafaxine, the active metabolite of venlafaxine, which “has greater activity on descending noradrenergic pathways” and could be particularly useful when the predominant component is noradrenergic.
Topical Options
Capsaicin is an option for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.
Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, the expert explained, is related to the overexpression of transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1, also known as the capsaicin receptor. Topical capsaicin abnormally stimulates these receptors, causing a massive influx of calcium that “defunctionalises the fibre” for periods ranging from a week to 2 months.
Clinical Takeaways
Therefore, neuropathic pain, particularly in patients with cancer, requires a multimodal approach that begins with an understanding of the molecular mechanisms to develop personalised treatment options. As Fornasari concluded, “Often, a lack of knowledge of a drug’s mechanism of action leads to its inappropriate, and ultimately ineffective, use.” The challenge for clinicians is to translate this knowledge into tangible improvements for patients, remembering that each patient is unique and requires personalised care that goes beyond standardised protocols.
Clinicians aim to translate these insights into meaningful relief, recognising that each patient requires tailored care.
Practical Guidance
- Accurate diagnosis: Screening tools should only be used as support, and decisions should be on the basis of a detailed history and physical examination. In individuals with cancer, the interview always began with the patient’s account.
- Recognising negative prognostic factors: Neuropathic pain, incident pain, psychological distress, delirium, and unrealistic expectations indicate a more difficult course and require a more intensive approach.
- Opioids should be used wisely: Dose escalation should be monitored, rotation should be considered when needed, and psychological factors should be assessed throughout care. As experts have noted, clinicians should try at least 2 or 3 opioids and at least 2 routes of administration before considering invasive procedures.
- Integrating adjuvant medicines early: Gabapentin and other antidepressants are not third-line treatments for individuals with cancer. Adequately dosed for at least 2 weeks to allow therapeutic benefit.
- Consider topical options: In localised peripheral neuropathies, capsaicin can be a valid addition to treatment.
- Use of non-opioid medicines: Some individuals respond exceptionally well to anti-inflammatory agents, with effects that can match those of high morphine doses.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, part of the this news organization Professional Network.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Okays CAR T-Cell Therapy for Marginal Zone Lymphoma
The FDA has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Bristol Myers Squibb) for relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in adults after at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.
Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso–cel) is now the only CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T–cell therapy approved for MZL. The approval marks liso-cel’s fifth indication, the most of any CD19-directed CAR T–cell therapy, BMS said in a press release.
Prior approvals are also in the relapsed or refractory setting and include large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma.
MZL is a slow-growing subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), accounting for about 7% of all NHL cases and typically diagnosed in older adults. Prognosis is generally favorable, but in patients who relapse or become refractory, NHL can transform into diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Basis for Approval
Liso-cel’s new approval was based on the MZL cohort of the single arm TRANSFORM FL trial, which included 66 patients in the third or later lines; 95.5% responded to the one-time treatment, with 62.1% having a complete response. Responses were durable in 90.1% of patients at 2 years, according to the BMS press release.
In terms of safety, 76% of MZL patients developed cytokine release syndrome, which was grade 3 or worse in 4.5%. Nervous system disorders included headache (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), encephalopathy (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), tremor (21%), dizziness (16%), and aphasia (10%).
Labeling also warns of hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, prolonged cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinemia, and secondary malignancies.
Cost of Treatment
One-time treatment costs $567,237.18, according to drugs.com. BMS noted liso-cel is broadly covered by commercial and government insurance programs.
M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master’s degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award–winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining this news organization. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow. Email: [email protected]
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The FDA has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Bristol Myers Squibb) for relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in adults after at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.
Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso–cel) is now the only CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T–cell therapy approved for MZL. The approval marks liso-cel’s fifth indication, the most of any CD19-directed CAR T–cell therapy, BMS said in a press release.
Prior approvals are also in the relapsed or refractory setting and include large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma.
MZL is a slow-growing subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), accounting for about 7% of all NHL cases and typically diagnosed in older adults. Prognosis is generally favorable, but in patients who relapse or become refractory, NHL can transform into diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Basis for Approval
Liso-cel’s new approval was based on the MZL cohort of the single arm TRANSFORM FL trial, which included 66 patients in the third or later lines; 95.5% responded to the one-time treatment, with 62.1% having a complete response. Responses were durable in 90.1% of patients at 2 years, according to the BMS press release.
In terms of safety, 76% of MZL patients developed cytokine release syndrome, which was grade 3 or worse in 4.5%. Nervous system disorders included headache (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), encephalopathy (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), tremor (21%), dizziness (16%), and aphasia (10%).
Labeling also warns of hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, prolonged cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinemia, and secondary malignancies.
Cost of Treatment
One-time treatment costs $567,237.18, according to drugs.com. BMS noted liso-cel is broadly covered by commercial and government insurance programs.
M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master’s degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award–winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining this news organization. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow. Email: [email protected]
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The FDA has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Bristol Myers Squibb) for relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in adults after at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.
Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso–cel) is now the only CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T–cell therapy approved for MZL. The approval marks liso-cel’s fifth indication, the most of any CD19-directed CAR T–cell therapy, BMS said in a press release.
Prior approvals are also in the relapsed or refractory setting and include large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma.
MZL is a slow-growing subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), accounting for about 7% of all NHL cases and typically diagnosed in older adults. Prognosis is generally favorable, but in patients who relapse or become refractory, NHL can transform into diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Basis for Approval
Liso-cel’s new approval was based on the MZL cohort of the single arm TRANSFORM FL trial, which included 66 patients in the third or later lines; 95.5% responded to the one-time treatment, with 62.1% having a complete response. Responses were durable in 90.1% of patients at 2 years, according to the BMS press release.
In terms of safety, 76% of MZL patients developed cytokine release syndrome, which was grade 3 or worse in 4.5%. Nervous system disorders included headache (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), encephalopathy (21%, grade ≥ 3 in 1.5%), tremor (21%), dizziness (16%), and aphasia (10%).
Labeling also warns of hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, prolonged cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinemia, and secondary malignancies.
Cost of Treatment
One-time treatment costs $567,237.18, according to drugs.com. BMS noted liso-cel is broadly covered by commercial and government insurance programs.
M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master’s degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award–winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining this news organization. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow. Email: [email protected]
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
RSV Vaccine Effective in Older Veterans, But Protection Declines Over Time
RSV Vaccine Effective in Older Veterans, But Protection Declines Over Time
TOPLINE:
A single dose of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine provided protection against RSV illness and associated health care use in nearly 290,000 older US veterans over 2 respiratory illness seasons compared with unvaccinated individuals; however, protection declined over time, particularly among immunocompromised individuals.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers emulated a target trial to assess the long-term effectiveness of a single does of RSV vaccine, administered between September 2023 and March 2024, to prevent RSV infection and associated health care use among older US veterans.
- The primary outcome was any positive RSV test from 14 days after vaccination; secondary outcomes included RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, and ICU admissions.
- The median follow-up duration, measured from 14 days after vaccination, was 15.8 months, with a maximum of 19.0 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- The estimated vaccines effectiveness against RSV infection decreased from 82.5% (95% CI, 77.5%-86.9%) over 0 to 1 month to 59.4% (95% CI, 55.6%-63.5%) over 0 to 18 months of follow-up.
- Protection against RSV-associated emergency department and urgent care visits fell from 84.9% over 0 to 1 month to 60.6% over 0 to 18 months, and the estimated effectiveness against hospitalizations decreased from 88.9% to 57.3% over the same interval.
- The estimated effectiveness against RSV-associated ICU admissions reduced from 92.5% (95% CI, 61.1%-100%) over 0 to 1 month to 71.9% (95% CI, 42.8%-90.0%) over 0 to 18 months.
- Among immunocompromised individuals, protection against RSV infection showed the largest decline from 75.2% at 0 to 1 month to 39.7% over 18 months.
IN PRACTICE:
"Boosters may be needed, but for now, our efforts should be focused on saving lives and decreasing disease by encouraging vaccination of persons 75 years and older and those 60 years and older with underlying health issues," experts wrote in an accompanying editorial.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kristina L. Bajema, MD, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon. It was published online on November 24, 2025, in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
RSV documentation may have been incomplete for veterans who sought care outside the Veterans Health Administration. The cohort was predominantly White men, limiting generalizability. Residual confounding could not be excluded. Estimates of long-term effectiveness should be interpreted cautiously because they reflect patients who remained in care and may differ from the original matched cohort.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, US Department of Health and Human Services, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and FDA. Two authors reported receiving grants from the study funder and/or the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; one of these authors also reported co-ownership of van Breemen & Hynes, LLC, unrelated to the submitted work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A single dose of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine provided protection against RSV illness and associated health care use in nearly 290,000 older US veterans over 2 respiratory illness seasons compared with unvaccinated individuals; however, protection declined over time, particularly among immunocompromised individuals.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers emulated a target trial to assess the long-term effectiveness of a single does of RSV vaccine, administered between September 2023 and March 2024, to prevent RSV infection and associated health care use among older US veterans.
- The primary outcome was any positive RSV test from 14 days after vaccination; secondary outcomes included RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, and ICU admissions.
- The median follow-up duration, measured from 14 days after vaccination, was 15.8 months, with a maximum of 19.0 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- The estimated vaccines effectiveness against RSV infection decreased from 82.5% (95% CI, 77.5%-86.9%) over 0 to 1 month to 59.4% (95% CI, 55.6%-63.5%) over 0 to 18 months of follow-up.
- Protection against RSV-associated emergency department and urgent care visits fell from 84.9% over 0 to 1 month to 60.6% over 0 to 18 months, and the estimated effectiveness against hospitalizations decreased from 88.9% to 57.3% over the same interval.
- The estimated effectiveness against RSV-associated ICU admissions reduced from 92.5% (95% CI, 61.1%-100%) over 0 to 1 month to 71.9% (95% CI, 42.8%-90.0%) over 0 to 18 months.
- Among immunocompromised individuals, protection against RSV infection showed the largest decline from 75.2% at 0 to 1 month to 39.7% over 18 months.
IN PRACTICE:
"Boosters may be needed, but for now, our efforts should be focused on saving lives and decreasing disease by encouraging vaccination of persons 75 years and older and those 60 years and older with underlying health issues," experts wrote in an accompanying editorial.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kristina L. Bajema, MD, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon. It was published online on November 24, 2025, in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
RSV documentation may have been incomplete for veterans who sought care outside the Veterans Health Administration. The cohort was predominantly White men, limiting generalizability. Residual confounding could not be excluded. Estimates of long-term effectiveness should be interpreted cautiously because they reflect patients who remained in care and may differ from the original matched cohort.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, US Department of Health and Human Services, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and FDA. Two authors reported receiving grants from the study funder and/or the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; one of these authors also reported co-ownership of van Breemen & Hynes, LLC, unrelated to the submitted work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A single dose of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine provided protection against RSV illness and associated health care use in nearly 290,000 older US veterans over 2 respiratory illness seasons compared with unvaccinated individuals; however, protection declined over time, particularly among immunocompromised individuals.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers emulated a target trial to assess the long-term effectiveness of a single does of RSV vaccine, administered between September 2023 and March 2024, to prevent RSV infection and associated health care use among older US veterans.
- The primary outcome was any positive RSV test from 14 days after vaccination; secondary outcomes included RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, and ICU admissions.
- The median follow-up duration, measured from 14 days after vaccination, was 15.8 months, with a maximum of 19.0 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- The estimated vaccines effectiveness against RSV infection decreased from 82.5% (95% CI, 77.5%-86.9%) over 0 to 1 month to 59.4% (95% CI, 55.6%-63.5%) over 0 to 18 months of follow-up.
- Protection against RSV-associated emergency department and urgent care visits fell from 84.9% over 0 to 1 month to 60.6% over 0 to 18 months, and the estimated effectiveness against hospitalizations decreased from 88.9% to 57.3% over the same interval.
- The estimated effectiveness against RSV-associated ICU admissions reduced from 92.5% (95% CI, 61.1%-100%) over 0 to 1 month to 71.9% (95% CI, 42.8%-90.0%) over 0 to 18 months.
- Among immunocompromised individuals, protection against RSV infection showed the largest decline from 75.2% at 0 to 1 month to 39.7% over 18 months.
IN PRACTICE:
"Boosters may be needed, but for now, our efforts should be focused on saving lives and decreasing disease by encouraging vaccination of persons 75 years and older and those 60 years and older with underlying health issues," experts wrote in an accompanying editorial.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kristina L. Bajema, MD, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon. It was published online on November 24, 2025, in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
RSV documentation may have been incomplete for veterans who sought care outside the Veterans Health Administration. The cohort was predominantly White men, limiting generalizability. Residual confounding could not be excluded. Estimates of long-term effectiveness should be interpreted cautiously because they reflect patients who remained in care and may differ from the original matched cohort.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, US Department of Health and Human Services, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and FDA. Two authors reported receiving grants from the study funder and/or the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; one of these authors also reported co-ownership of van Breemen & Hynes, LLC, unrelated to the submitted work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
RSV Vaccine Effective in Older Veterans, But Protection Declines Over Time
RSV Vaccine Effective in Older Veterans, But Protection Declines Over Time
Single-Incision Robotic Surgery Exhibits Safety, Feasibility in Colorectal Cases
Single-Incision Robotic Surgery Exhibits Safety, Feasibility in Colorectal Cases
TOPLINE: A novel single-incision robotic surgery technique for colorectal procedures demonstrated feasibility with 0% conversion to open surgery rate; only 1 case required additional ports. The technique achieved a 30-day all-severity morbidity rate of 20% and major morbidity of 6%.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective review to report a unique, single-incision robotic surgery technique that uses a fascial wound protector device and multiport robotic surgical system in colorectal surgery.
- Analysis included 50 patients (60% women) with mean ages of 53.5 years and median BMI of 27.2 kg/m2.
- Study was performed at a single quaternary, urban, academic institution from December 2023 to April 2025.
- Patients aged ≥ 18 years with colorectal indications who underwent robotic single-incision surgery using a Da Vinci multiport robotic platform were included.
TAKEAWAY:
- Conversion to open surgery rate was 0%; 1 case required additional robotic ports.
- The 30-day all-severity morbidity rate was 20%; 30-day major morbidity was 6%.
- Pathologies treated included Crohn's disease (26%), diverticulitis (22%), colon cancer (16%), colostomy status (8%), and rectal cancer (4%).
- Successful procedures included right-sided colectomies (14%), left-sided colectomies (28%), total colectomy (4%), rectal resection (4%), small bowel procedures (22%), and ostomy creation/reversal (18%).
IN PRACTICE: "Our rSIS technique utilizing a multiport robotic system is safe and feasible across a wide spectrum of colorectal procedures," wrote the study authors.
LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, reproducible successful completion of surgeries using this technique may be challenging in populations requiring deep pelvic dissections, especially in narrow male pelvis cases, and in patients with very high BMI and significant intra-abdominal adipose tissue.
DISCLOSURES: The authors report no financial support was received for this study and declare no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
TOPLINE: A novel single-incision robotic surgery technique for colorectal procedures demonstrated feasibility with 0% conversion to open surgery rate; only 1 case required additional ports. The technique achieved a 30-day all-severity morbidity rate of 20% and major morbidity of 6%.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective review to report a unique, single-incision robotic surgery technique that uses a fascial wound protector device and multiport robotic surgical system in colorectal surgery.
- Analysis included 50 patients (60% women) with mean ages of 53.5 years and median BMI of 27.2 kg/m2.
- Study was performed at a single quaternary, urban, academic institution from December 2023 to April 2025.
- Patients aged ≥ 18 years with colorectal indications who underwent robotic single-incision surgery using a Da Vinci multiport robotic platform were included.
TAKEAWAY:
- Conversion to open surgery rate was 0%; 1 case required additional robotic ports.
- The 30-day all-severity morbidity rate was 20%; 30-day major morbidity was 6%.
- Pathologies treated included Crohn's disease (26%), diverticulitis (22%), colon cancer (16%), colostomy status (8%), and rectal cancer (4%).
- Successful procedures included right-sided colectomies (14%), left-sided colectomies (28%), total colectomy (4%), rectal resection (4%), small bowel procedures (22%), and ostomy creation/reversal (18%).
IN PRACTICE: "Our rSIS technique utilizing a multiport robotic system is safe and feasible across a wide spectrum of colorectal procedures," wrote the study authors.
LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, reproducible successful completion of surgeries using this technique may be challenging in populations requiring deep pelvic dissections, especially in narrow male pelvis cases, and in patients with very high BMI and significant intra-abdominal adipose tissue.
DISCLOSURES: The authors report no financial support was received for this study and declare no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
TOPLINE: A novel single-incision robotic surgery technique for colorectal procedures demonstrated feasibility with 0% conversion to open surgery rate; only 1 case required additional ports. The technique achieved a 30-day all-severity morbidity rate of 20% and major morbidity of 6%.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective review to report a unique, single-incision robotic surgery technique that uses a fascial wound protector device and multiport robotic surgical system in colorectal surgery.
- Analysis included 50 patients (60% women) with mean ages of 53.5 years and median BMI of 27.2 kg/m2.
- Study was performed at a single quaternary, urban, academic institution from December 2023 to April 2025.
- Patients aged ≥ 18 years with colorectal indications who underwent robotic single-incision surgery using a Da Vinci multiport robotic platform were included.
TAKEAWAY:
- Conversion to open surgery rate was 0%; 1 case required additional robotic ports.
- The 30-day all-severity morbidity rate was 20%; 30-day major morbidity was 6%.
- Pathologies treated included Crohn's disease (26%), diverticulitis (22%), colon cancer (16%), colostomy status (8%), and rectal cancer (4%).
- Successful procedures included right-sided colectomies (14%), left-sided colectomies (28%), total colectomy (4%), rectal resection (4%), small bowel procedures (22%), and ostomy creation/reversal (18%).
IN PRACTICE: "Our rSIS technique utilizing a multiport robotic system is safe and feasible across a wide spectrum of colorectal procedures," wrote the study authors.
LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, reproducible successful completion of surgeries using this technique may be challenging in populations requiring deep pelvic dissections, especially in narrow male pelvis cases, and in patients with very high BMI and significant intra-abdominal adipose tissue.
DISCLOSURES: The authors report no financial support was received for this study and declare no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Single-Incision Robotic Surgery Exhibits Safety, Feasibility in Colorectal Cases
Single-Incision Robotic Surgery Exhibits Safety, Feasibility in Colorectal Cases
Beta-Blockers May Reduce Mortality in Patients with Gastric Varices
, according to investigators.
In a real-world dataset of patients with gastric varices, NSBBs were associated with a 38% reduced mortality rate, supporting the common belief that protective effects extend across different types of varices, lead author Rebecca H. Moon, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, and colleagues, reported.
“Overall, numerous randomized trials have established NSBB efficacy in primary and secondary prevention of esophageal variceal hemorrhage,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “While these benefits are presumed to extend to gastric varices, empirical data on NSBB efficacy in gastric varices management remain scarce.”
To address this knowledge gap, Moon and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1,276 adults (aged 18-75 years) diagnosed with gastric varices between 2015 and 2021 within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California system.
Patients were followed through February 2022. Those with splenectomy, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) performed outside the system, or use of more than one type of NSBB were excluded. NSBB exposure was defined as therapy initiated within 1 year before or after variceal diagnosis.
Outcomes included gastric and esophageal variceal hemorrhage, TIPS, liver transplantation, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare NSBB users with nonusers and to assess individual effects of different NSBBs while adjusting for baseline characteristics.
The study population had a mean age of 58 years with a male predominance (63%). Approximately half (48%) of the patients were Hispanic. Common comorbidities included hypertension (66%), obesity (49%), and type 2 diabetes (45%). More than half of the patients (52.6%) had coexisting esophageal varices, 38% had ascites, and 22% had a history of hepatic encephalopathy.
In total, 767 patients (62%) received an NSBB. Propranolol and nadolol were most commonly prescribed, while carvedilol use was rare. Median follow-up was 1.1 years.
Overall, 40% of patients died during the study period. Mortality was significantly lower among NSBB users compared with nonusers (39.2% vs 50.9%), corresponding to a 38% reduced risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46–0.84). Nadolol was associated with the lowest mortality risk (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38–0.79), followed by propranolol (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50–1.00). Carvedilol use was too infrequent for meaningful analysis.
Rates of gastric variceal hemorrhage (7%), esophageal variceal hemorrhage (22%), TIPS (4%), and liver transplantation (5%) did not differ significantly between NSBB and non-NSBB groups.
“The observed reduction in mortality among NSBB users, particularly those on nadolol, suggests a potential survival benefit,” the investigators wrote. “However, the lack of statistically significant differences in other clinical outcomes, including gastric variceal hemorrhage, esophageal variceal hemorrhage, TIPS, and liver transplantation, indicates that the primary benefit of NSBBs in gastric varices management may be limited to mortality reduction rather than prevention of other complications.”
Moon and colleagues went on to call for additional research.
“Further prospective studies are needed to elucidate the effects of NSBBs on gastric varices and to refine treatment strategies for this high-risk population,” they wrote. “Given the substantial mortality associated with gastric variceal hemorrhage, continued research into novel therapeutic approaches is essential to improving outcomes for patients with gastric varices.”
Publication costs were covered by Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Education and Research. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
, according to investigators.
In a real-world dataset of patients with gastric varices, NSBBs were associated with a 38% reduced mortality rate, supporting the common belief that protective effects extend across different types of varices, lead author Rebecca H. Moon, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, and colleagues, reported.
“Overall, numerous randomized trials have established NSBB efficacy in primary and secondary prevention of esophageal variceal hemorrhage,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “While these benefits are presumed to extend to gastric varices, empirical data on NSBB efficacy in gastric varices management remain scarce.”
To address this knowledge gap, Moon and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1,276 adults (aged 18-75 years) diagnosed with gastric varices between 2015 and 2021 within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California system.
Patients were followed through February 2022. Those with splenectomy, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) performed outside the system, or use of more than one type of NSBB were excluded. NSBB exposure was defined as therapy initiated within 1 year before or after variceal diagnosis.
Outcomes included gastric and esophageal variceal hemorrhage, TIPS, liver transplantation, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare NSBB users with nonusers and to assess individual effects of different NSBBs while adjusting for baseline characteristics.
The study population had a mean age of 58 years with a male predominance (63%). Approximately half (48%) of the patients were Hispanic. Common comorbidities included hypertension (66%), obesity (49%), and type 2 diabetes (45%). More than half of the patients (52.6%) had coexisting esophageal varices, 38% had ascites, and 22% had a history of hepatic encephalopathy.
In total, 767 patients (62%) received an NSBB. Propranolol and nadolol were most commonly prescribed, while carvedilol use was rare. Median follow-up was 1.1 years.
Overall, 40% of patients died during the study period. Mortality was significantly lower among NSBB users compared with nonusers (39.2% vs 50.9%), corresponding to a 38% reduced risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46–0.84). Nadolol was associated with the lowest mortality risk (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38–0.79), followed by propranolol (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50–1.00). Carvedilol use was too infrequent for meaningful analysis.
Rates of gastric variceal hemorrhage (7%), esophageal variceal hemorrhage (22%), TIPS (4%), and liver transplantation (5%) did not differ significantly between NSBB and non-NSBB groups.
“The observed reduction in mortality among NSBB users, particularly those on nadolol, suggests a potential survival benefit,” the investigators wrote. “However, the lack of statistically significant differences in other clinical outcomes, including gastric variceal hemorrhage, esophageal variceal hemorrhage, TIPS, and liver transplantation, indicates that the primary benefit of NSBBs in gastric varices management may be limited to mortality reduction rather than prevention of other complications.”
Moon and colleagues went on to call for additional research.
“Further prospective studies are needed to elucidate the effects of NSBBs on gastric varices and to refine treatment strategies for this high-risk population,” they wrote. “Given the substantial mortality associated with gastric variceal hemorrhage, continued research into novel therapeutic approaches is essential to improving outcomes for patients with gastric varices.”
Publication costs were covered by Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Education and Research. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
, according to investigators.
In a real-world dataset of patients with gastric varices, NSBBs were associated with a 38% reduced mortality rate, supporting the common belief that protective effects extend across different types of varices, lead author Rebecca H. Moon, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, and colleagues, reported.
“Overall, numerous randomized trials have established NSBB efficacy in primary and secondary prevention of esophageal variceal hemorrhage,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “While these benefits are presumed to extend to gastric varices, empirical data on NSBB efficacy in gastric varices management remain scarce.”
To address this knowledge gap, Moon and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1,276 adults (aged 18-75 years) diagnosed with gastric varices between 2015 and 2021 within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California system.
Patients were followed through February 2022. Those with splenectomy, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) performed outside the system, or use of more than one type of NSBB were excluded. NSBB exposure was defined as therapy initiated within 1 year before or after variceal diagnosis.
Outcomes included gastric and esophageal variceal hemorrhage, TIPS, liver transplantation, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare NSBB users with nonusers and to assess individual effects of different NSBBs while adjusting for baseline characteristics.
The study population had a mean age of 58 years with a male predominance (63%). Approximately half (48%) of the patients were Hispanic. Common comorbidities included hypertension (66%), obesity (49%), and type 2 diabetes (45%). More than half of the patients (52.6%) had coexisting esophageal varices, 38% had ascites, and 22% had a history of hepatic encephalopathy.
In total, 767 patients (62%) received an NSBB. Propranolol and nadolol were most commonly prescribed, while carvedilol use was rare. Median follow-up was 1.1 years.
Overall, 40% of patients died during the study period. Mortality was significantly lower among NSBB users compared with nonusers (39.2% vs 50.9%), corresponding to a 38% reduced risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46–0.84). Nadolol was associated with the lowest mortality risk (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38–0.79), followed by propranolol (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50–1.00). Carvedilol use was too infrequent for meaningful analysis.
Rates of gastric variceal hemorrhage (7%), esophageal variceal hemorrhage (22%), TIPS (4%), and liver transplantation (5%) did not differ significantly between NSBB and non-NSBB groups.
“The observed reduction in mortality among NSBB users, particularly those on nadolol, suggests a potential survival benefit,” the investigators wrote. “However, the lack of statistically significant differences in other clinical outcomes, including gastric variceal hemorrhage, esophageal variceal hemorrhage, TIPS, and liver transplantation, indicates that the primary benefit of NSBBs in gastric varices management may be limited to mortality reduction rather than prevention of other complications.”
Moon and colleagues went on to call for additional research.
“Further prospective studies are needed to elucidate the effects of NSBBs on gastric varices and to refine treatment strategies for this high-risk population,” they wrote. “Given the substantial mortality associated with gastric variceal hemorrhage, continued research into novel therapeutic approaches is essential to improving outcomes for patients with gastric varices.”
Publication costs were covered by Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Education and Research. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
UK Approves Targeted Therapy for Cervical Cancer
UK Approves Targeted Therapy for Cervical Cancer
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved tisotumab vedotin (Genmab AS) for adults with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.
The decision, made via the International Recognition Procedure, applies to patients whose disease has progressed after prior systemic therapy. It provides a new treatment option for a high-risk group with limited alternatives.
How the Treatment Works
Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a tissue factor-directed human monoclonal antibody with monomethyl auristatin E, a microtubule-disrupting agent. The therapy targets tissue factor, which is overexpressed in a several solid tumours, including recurrent cervical cancer.
It is administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks.
What Trials Showed
The approval is based on evidence from multiple clinical studies demonstrating tisotumab vedotin's efficacy in previously treated patients.
In the phase 2 innovaTV 204 study, 102 patients were enrolled and 101 received at least 1 dose of tisotumab vedotin. The confirmed objective response rate was 24%, including seven complete responses and 17 partial responses, demonstrating clinically meaningful activity in a heavily pretreated population.
Further evidence came from the phase 3 innovaTV-301 trial, which randomly assigned 502 patients to receive either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's-choice chemotherapy.
Median overall survival was 11.5 months with the new therapy compared with 9.5 months in the chemotherapy arm, translating to roughly a 30% reduction in the risk for death. The confirmed objective response rate was also significantly higher with tisotumab vedotin—17.8% vs 5.2%—underscoring its advantage over standard treatment options.
Safety and Tolerability
Ocular toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the most notable adverse reactions.
Common treatment-related events in the phase 2 study included alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea, conjunctivitis (26%), and fatigue (26%).
Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in about 28% of patients. Clinicians should be alert to conjunctivitis and keratitis as well as sensory neuropathic symptoms (numbness, tingling, or a burning sensation in the hands and feet).
Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the MHRA, said that patient safety is the agency's "top priority." "We will continue to monitor its safety closely as it becomes more widely used," he added.
The Summary of Product Characteristics and Patient Information Leaflets will be published on the MHRA website within 7 days of approval.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved tisotumab vedotin (Genmab AS) for adults with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.
The decision, made via the International Recognition Procedure, applies to patients whose disease has progressed after prior systemic therapy. It provides a new treatment option for a high-risk group with limited alternatives.
How the Treatment Works
Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a tissue factor-directed human monoclonal antibody with monomethyl auristatin E, a microtubule-disrupting agent. The therapy targets tissue factor, which is overexpressed in a several solid tumours, including recurrent cervical cancer.
It is administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks.
What Trials Showed
The approval is based on evidence from multiple clinical studies demonstrating tisotumab vedotin's efficacy in previously treated patients.
In the phase 2 innovaTV 204 study, 102 patients were enrolled and 101 received at least 1 dose of tisotumab vedotin. The confirmed objective response rate was 24%, including seven complete responses and 17 partial responses, demonstrating clinically meaningful activity in a heavily pretreated population.
Further evidence came from the phase 3 innovaTV-301 trial, which randomly assigned 502 patients to receive either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's-choice chemotherapy.
Median overall survival was 11.5 months with the new therapy compared with 9.5 months in the chemotherapy arm, translating to roughly a 30% reduction in the risk for death. The confirmed objective response rate was also significantly higher with tisotumab vedotin—17.8% vs 5.2%—underscoring its advantage over standard treatment options.
Safety and Tolerability
Ocular toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the most notable adverse reactions.
Common treatment-related events in the phase 2 study included alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea, conjunctivitis (26%), and fatigue (26%).
Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in about 28% of patients. Clinicians should be alert to conjunctivitis and keratitis as well as sensory neuropathic symptoms (numbness, tingling, or a burning sensation in the hands and feet).
Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the MHRA, said that patient safety is the agency's "top priority." "We will continue to monitor its safety closely as it becomes more widely used," he added.
The Summary of Product Characteristics and Patient Information Leaflets will be published on the MHRA website within 7 days of approval.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved tisotumab vedotin (Genmab AS) for adults with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.
The decision, made via the International Recognition Procedure, applies to patients whose disease has progressed after prior systemic therapy. It provides a new treatment option for a high-risk group with limited alternatives.
How the Treatment Works
Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a tissue factor-directed human monoclonal antibody with monomethyl auristatin E, a microtubule-disrupting agent. The therapy targets tissue factor, which is overexpressed in a several solid tumours, including recurrent cervical cancer.
It is administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks.
What Trials Showed
The approval is based on evidence from multiple clinical studies demonstrating tisotumab vedotin's efficacy in previously treated patients.
In the phase 2 innovaTV 204 study, 102 patients were enrolled and 101 received at least 1 dose of tisotumab vedotin. The confirmed objective response rate was 24%, including seven complete responses and 17 partial responses, demonstrating clinically meaningful activity in a heavily pretreated population.
Further evidence came from the phase 3 innovaTV-301 trial, which randomly assigned 502 patients to receive either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's-choice chemotherapy.
Median overall survival was 11.5 months with the new therapy compared with 9.5 months in the chemotherapy arm, translating to roughly a 30% reduction in the risk for death. The confirmed objective response rate was also significantly higher with tisotumab vedotin—17.8% vs 5.2%—underscoring its advantage over standard treatment options.
Safety and Tolerability
Ocular toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the most notable adverse reactions.
Common treatment-related events in the phase 2 study included alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea, conjunctivitis (26%), and fatigue (26%).
Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in about 28% of patients. Clinicians should be alert to conjunctivitis and keratitis as well as sensory neuropathic symptoms (numbness, tingling, or a burning sensation in the hands and feet).
Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the MHRA, said that patient safety is the agency's "top priority." "We will continue to monitor its safety closely as it becomes more widely used," he added.
The Summary of Product Characteristics and Patient Information Leaflets will be published on the MHRA website within 7 days of approval.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
UK Approves Targeted Therapy for Cervical Cancer
UK Approves Targeted Therapy for Cervical Cancer
FDA OKs Blood-Based Test to Help Diagnose Prostate Cancer
FDA OKs Blood-Based Test to Help Diagnose Prostate Cancer
The FDA has granted Cleveland Diagnostics' IsoPSA test premarket approval (PMA) to help detect prostate cancer in men aged ≥ 50 years with elevated PSA levels.
IsoPSA is a blood assay that detects variations of the PSA protein that signal a higher likelihood of high-grade tumors. It is one of several biomarker tests included in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines on early detection of prostate cancer.
Cleveland Diagnostics noted that 75% of prostate biopsies are negative for high-grade disease. IsoPSA and similar tests aim to help identify men who need a biopsy while allowing others avoid an unnecessary procedure.
IsoPSA has been available since 2020 under the FDA's Laboratory-Developed Test rubric, meaning that blood samples had to be shipped for analysis to Cleveland Diagnostics' lab. With the PMA, testing can now be done at CLIA-certified labs across the country.
The company expects the approval should increase access to IsoPSA and reduce turnaround time. "We remain focused on executing our commercial strategy and expanding access to IsoPSA," company President and CEO Arnon Chait, PhD, said in a press release.
The approval was based, in part, on a prospective validation study of 888 men scheduled for prostate biopsy. IsoPSA demonstrated an AUC of 0.783 for high-grade tumors, with a sensitivity of 90.2% and a specificity of 45.5%. In a real-world clinical utility study with 900 patients, IsoPSA testing led to a 55% decrease in biopsy recommendations.
The test is covered by Medicare and a growing number of commercial payers, Cleveland Diagnostics said.
M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master's degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award-winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining Medscape Medical News. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellow. Email: [email protected].
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The FDA has granted Cleveland Diagnostics' IsoPSA test premarket approval (PMA) to help detect prostate cancer in men aged ≥ 50 years with elevated PSA levels.
IsoPSA is a blood assay that detects variations of the PSA protein that signal a higher likelihood of high-grade tumors. It is one of several biomarker tests included in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines on early detection of prostate cancer.
Cleveland Diagnostics noted that 75% of prostate biopsies are negative for high-grade disease. IsoPSA and similar tests aim to help identify men who need a biopsy while allowing others avoid an unnecessary procedure.
IsoPSA has been available since 2020 under the FDA's Laboratory-Developed Test rubric, meaning that blood samples had to be shipped for analysis to Cleveland Diagnostics' lab. With the PMA, testing can now be done at CLIA-certified labs across the country.
The company expects the approval should increase access to IsoPSA and reduce turnaround time. "We remain focused on executing our commercial strategy and expanding access to IsoPSA," company President and CEO Arnon Chait, PhD, said in a press release.
The approval was based, in part, on a prospective validation study of 888 men scheduled for prostate biopsy. IsoPSA demonstrated an AUC of 0.783 for high-grade tumors, with a sensitivity of 90.2% and a specificity of 45.5%. In a real-world clinical utility study with 900 patients, IsoPSA testing led to a 55% decrease in biopsy recommendations.
The test is covered by Medicare and a growing number of commercial payers, Cleveland Diagnostics said.
M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master's degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award-winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining Medscape Medical News. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellow. Email: [email protected].
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The FDA has granted Cleveland Diagnostics' IsoPSA test premarket approval (PMA) to help detect prostate cancer in men aged ≥ 50 years with elevated PSA levels.
IsoPSA is a blood assay that detects variations of the PSA protein that signal a higher likelihood of high-grade tumors. It is one of several biomarker tests included in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines on early detection of prostate cancer.
Cleveland Diagnostics noted that 75% of prostate biopsies are negative for high-grade disease. IsoPSA and similar tests aim to help identify men who need a biopsy while allowing others avoid an unnecessary procedure.
IsoPSA has been available since 2020 under the FDA's Laboratory-Developed Test rubric, meaning that blood samples had to be shipped for analysis to Cleveland Diagnostics' lab. With the PMA, testing can now be done at CLIA-certified labs across the country.
The company expects the approval should increase access to IsoPSA and reduce turnaround time. "We remain focused on executing our commercial strategy and expanding access to IsoPSA," company President and CEO Arnon Chait, PhD, said in a press release.
The approval was based, in part, on a prospective validation study of 888 men scheduled for prostate biopsy. IsoPSA demonstrated an AUC of 0.783 for high-grade tumors, with a sensitivity of 90.2% and a specificity of 45.5%. In a real-world clinical utility study with 900 patients, IsoPSA testing led to a 55% decrease in biopsy recommendations.
The test is covered by Medicare and a growing number of commercial payers, Cleveland Diagnostics said.
M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master's degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award-winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining Medscape Medical News. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellow. Email: [email protected].
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs Blood-Based Test to Help Diagnose Prostate Cancer
FDA OKs Blood-Based Test to Help Diagnose Prostate Cancer