News

In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irinotecan liposome (Onivyde) as part of a new regimen for first-line metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma called NALIRIFOX.

The main difference between NALIRIFOX and a standard go-to regimen for the indication, modified FOLFIRINOX, is that liposomal irinotecan — irinotecan encased in a lipid nanoparticle — is used instead of free irinotecan.

Trial data suggested a better overall response rate, a slight progression-free survival advantage, and potentially fewer adverse events with the liposomal formulation.

The substitution, however, raises the cost of treatment substantially. According to one estimate, a single cycle of FOLFIRINOX costs about $500 at a body surface area of 2 m², while the equivalent single cycle of NALIRIFOX costs $7800 — over 15-fold more expensive.

While some oncologists have called the NALIRIFOX regimen a potential new standard first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, others have expressed serious doubts about whether the potential benefits are worth the extra cost.

“I can’t really see a single scenario where I would recommend NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX” Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and pancreatic cancer researcher at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization. “Most of us in the academic setting have the same take on this.”
 

No Head-to-Head Comparison

Uncertainty surrounding the benefits of NALIRIFOX is largely driven by the fact that NALIRIFOX wasn’t compared with FOLFIRINOX in the phase 3 trial that won liposomal irinotecan approval.

Instead, the 770-patient NAPOLI 3 trial compared NALIRIFOX — which also includes oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin — with a two-drug regimen, nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. In the trial, overall survival and other outcomes were moderately better with NALIRIFOX.

Oncologists have said that the true value of the trial is that it conclusively demonstrates that a four-drug regimen is superior to a two-drug regimen for patients who can tolerate the more intensive therapy.

Eileen M. O’Reilly, MD, the senior investigator on NAPOLI 3, made this point when she presented the phase 3 results at the 2023 ASCO annual meeting.

The trial “answers the question of four drugs versus two” for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer but “does not address the question of NALIRIFOX versus FOLFIRINOX,” said Dr. O’Reilly, a pancreatic and hepatobiliary oncologist and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

Comparing them directly in the study “probably wouldn’t have been in the interest of the sponsor,” said Dr. O’Reilly.

With no head-to-head comparison, oncologists have been comparing NAPOLI 3 results with those from PRODIGE 4, the 2011 trial that won FOLFIRINOX its place as a first-line regimen.

When comparing the trials, median overall survival was exactly the same for the two regimens — 11.1 months. FOLFIRINOX was associated with a slightly higher 1-year survival rate — 48.4% with FOLFIRINOX vs 45.6% with NALIRIFOX.

However, Dr. O’Reilly and her colleagues also highlighted comparisons between the two trials that favored NAPOLI 3.

NAPOLI 3 had no age limit, while PRODIGE subjects were no older than 75 years. Median progression-free survival was 1 month longer among patients receiving NALIRIFOX — 7.4 months vs 6.4 months in PRODIGE — and overall response rates were higher as well — 41.8% in NAPOLI 3 vs 31.6%. Patients receiving NALIRIFOX also had lower rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (23.8% vs 45.7%, respectively) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.5% vs 9.0%, respectively).

The authors explained that the lower rate of neuropathy could be because NALIRIFOX uses a lower dose of oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), at 60 mg/m² instead of 85 mg/m².
 

Is It Worth It?

During a presentation of the phase 3 findings last year, study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

The study discussant, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, agreed that the results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as “the new standard for fit patients.”

However, other oncologists remain skeptical about the benefits of the new regimen over FOLFIRINOX for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

In a recent editorial, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and University of Utah gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Nevala-Plagemann, MD, compared the evidence for both regimens.

The experts pointed out that overall response rates were assessed by investigators in NAPOLI 3 and not by an independent review committee, as in PRODIGE 4, and might have been overestimated.

Although the lack of an age limit was touted as a benefit of NAPOLI 3, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann doubt whether enough patients over 75 years old participated to draw any meaningful conclusions about using NALIRIFOX in older, frailer patients. If anything, patients in PRODIGE 4 might have been less fit because, among other things, the trial allowed patients with serum albumins < 3 g/dL.

On the adverse event front, the authors highlighted the higher incidences of grade 3 or worse diarrhea with NALIRIFOX (20% vs 12.7%) and questioned if there truly is less neutropenia with NALIRIFOX because high-risk patients in NAPOLI 3 were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent it. The pair also questioned whether the differences in neuropathy rates between the two trials were big enough to be clinically meaningful.

Insights from a recent meta-analysis may further clarify some of the lingering questions about the efficacy of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX.

In the analysis, the team found no meaningful difference in overall and progression-free survival between the two regimens. Differences in rates of peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were not statistically significant, but NALIRIFOX did carry a statistically significant advantage in lower rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and vomiting.

The team concluded that “NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX may provide equal efficacy as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer, but with different toxicity profiles,” and called for careful patient selection when choosing between the two regimens as well as consideration of financial toxicity.

Dr. Garrido-Laguna had a different take. With the current data, NALIRIFOX does not seem to “add anything substantially different to what we already” have with FOLFIRINOX, he told this news organization. Given that, “we can’t really justify NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX without more of a head-to-head comparison.”

The higher cost of NALIRIFOX, in particular, remains a major drawback.

“We think it would be an economic disservice to our healthcare systems if we used NALIRIFOX instead of FOLFIRINOX for these patients on the basis of [NAPOLI 3] data,” Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, and Christopher Booth, MD, gastrointestinal oncologists at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, said in a recent essay.

Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann reiterated this concern.

Overall, “NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar but rather exposes patients and healthcare systems to financial toxicities,” Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann wrote in their review.

NAPOLI 3 was funded by Ipsen and PRODIGE 4 was funded by the government of France. No funding source was reported for the meta-analysis. NAPOLI 3 investigators included Ipsen employees. Dr. O’Reilly disclosed grants or contracts from Ipsen and many other companies. Dr. Garrido-Laguna reported institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies, but not Ipsen. Dr. Nevala-Plagemann is an advisor for Seagen and reported institutional research funding from Theriva. Dr. Gyawali is a consultant for Vivio Health; Dr. Booth had no disclosures. Two meta-analysis authors reported grants or personal fees from Ipsen as well as ties to other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irinotecan liposome (Onivyde) as part of a new regimen for first-line metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma called NALIRIFOX.

The main difference between NALIRIFOX and a standard go-to regimen for the indication, modified FOLFIRINOX, is that liposomal irinotecan — irinotecan encased in a lipid nanoparticle — is used instead of free irinotecan.

Trial data suggested a better overall response rate, a slight progression-free survival advantage, and potentially fewer adverse events with the liposomal formulation.

The substitution, however, raises the cost of treatment substantially. According to one estimate, a single cycle of FOLFIRINOX costs about $500 at a body surface area of 2 m², while the equivalent single cycle of NALIRIFOX costs $7800 — over 15-fold more expensive.

While some oncologists have called the NALIRIFOX regimen a potential new standard first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, others have expressed serious doubts about whether the potential benefits are worth the extra cost.

“I can’t really see a single scenario where I would recommend NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX” Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and pancreatic cancer researcher at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization. “Most of us in the academic setting have the same take on this.”
 

No Head-to-Head Comparison

Uncertainty surrounding the benefits of NALIRIFOX is largely driven by the fact that NALIRIFOX wasn’t compared with FOLFIRINOX in the phase 3 trial that won liposomal irinotecan approval.

Instead, the 770-patient NAPOLI 3 trial compared NALIRIFOX — which also includes oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin — with a two-drug regimen, nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. In the trial, overall survival and other outcomes were moderately better with NALIRIFOX.

Oncologists have said that the true value of the trial is that it conclusively demonstrates that a four-drug regimen is superior to a two-drug regimen for patients who can tolerate the more intensive therapy.

Eileen M. O’Reilly, MD, the senior investigator on NAPOLI 3, made this point when she presented the phase 3 results at the 2023 ASCO annual meeting.

The trial “answers the question of four drugs versus two” for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer but “does not address the question of NALIRIFOX versus FOLFIRINOX,” said Dr. O’Reilly, a pancreatic and hepatobiliary oncologist and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

Comparing them directly in the study “probably wouldn’t have been in the interest of the sponsor,” said Dr. O’Reilly.

With no head-to-head comparison, oncologists have been comparing NAPOLI 3 results with those from PRODIGE 4, the 2011 trial that won FOLFIRINOX its place as a first-line regimen.

When comparing the trials, median overall survival was exactly the same for the two regimens — 11.1 months. FOLFIRINOX was associated with a slightly higher 1-year survival rate — 48.4% with FOLFIRINOX vs 45.6% with NALIRIFOX.

However, Dr. O’Reilly and her colleagues also highlighted comparisons between the two trials that favored NAPOLI 3.

NAPOLI 3 had no age limit, while PRODIGE subjects were no older than 75 years. Median progression-free survival was 1 month longer among patients receiving NALIRIFOX — 7.4 months vs 6.4 months in PRODIGE — and overall response rates were higher as well — 41.8% in NAPOLI 3 vs 31.6%. Patients receiving NALIRIFOX also had lower rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (23.8% vs 45.7%, respectively) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.5% vs 9.0%, respectively).

The authors explained that the lower rate of neuropathy could be because NALIRIFOX uses a lower dose of oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), at 60 mg/m² instead of 85 mg/m².
 

Is It Worth It?

During a presentation of the phase 3 findings last year, study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

The study discussant, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, agreed that the results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as “the new standard for fit patients.”

However, other oncologists remain skeptical about the benefits of the new regimen over FOLFIRINOX for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

In a recent editorial, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and University of Utah gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Nevala-Plagemann, MD, compared the evidence for both regimens.

The experts pointed out that overall response rates were assessed by investigators in NAPOLI 3 and not by an independent review committee, as in PRODIGE 4, and might have been overestimated.

Although the lack of an age limit was touted as a benefit of NAPOLI 3, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann doubt whether enough patients over 75 years old participated to draw any meaningful conclusions about using NALIRIFOX in older, frailer patients. If anything, patients in PRODIGE 4 might have been less fit because, among other things, the trial allowed patients with serum albumins < 3 g/dL.

On the adverse event front, the authors highlighted the higher incidences of grade 3 or worse diarrhea with NALIRIFOX (20% vs 12.7%) and questioned if there truly is less neutropenia with NALIRIFOX because high-risk patients in NAPOLI 3 were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent it. The pair also questioned whether the differences in neuropathy rates between the two trials were big enough to be clinically meaningful.

Insights from a recent meta-analysis may further clarify some of the lingering questions about the efficacy of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX.

In the analysis, the team found no meaningful difference in overall and progression-free survival between the two regimens. Differences in rates of peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were not statistically significant, but NALIRIFOX did carry a statistically significant advantage in lower rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and vomiting.

The team concluded that “NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX may provide equal efficacy as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer, but with different toxicity profiles,” and called for careful patient selection when choosing between the two regimens as well as consideration of financial toxicity.

Dr. Garrido-Laguna had a different take. With the current data, NALIRIFOX does not seem to “add anything substantially different to what we already” have with FOLFIRINOX, he told this news organization. Given that, “we can’t really justify NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX without more of a head-to-head comparison.”

The higher cost of NALIRIFOX, in particular, remains a major drawback.

“We think it would be an economic disservice to our healthcare systems if we used NALIRIFOX instead of FOLFIRINOX for these patients on the basis of [NAPOLI 3] data,” Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, and Christopher Booth, MD, gastrointestinal oncologists at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, said in a recent essay.

Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann reiterated this concern.

Overall, “NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar but rather exposes patients and healthcare systems to financial toxicities,” Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann wrote in their review.

NAPOLI 3 was funded by Ipsen and PRODIGE 4 was funded by the government of France. No funding source was reported for the meta-analysis. NAPOLI 3 investigators included Ipsen employees. Dr. O’Reilly disclosed grants or contracts from Ipsen and many other companies. Dr. Garrido-Laguna reported institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies, but not Ipsen. Dr. Nevala-Plagemann is an advisor for Seagen and reported institutional research funding from Theriva. Dr. Gyawali is a consultant for Vivio Health; Dr. Booth had no disclosures. Two meta-analysis authors reported grants or personal fees from Ipsen as well as ties to other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irinotecan liposome (Onivyde) as part of a new regimen for first-line metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma called NALIRIFOX.

The main difference between NALIRIFOX and a standard go-to regimen for the indication, modified FOLFIRINOX, is that liposomal irinotecan — irinotecan encased in a lipid nanoparticle — is used instead of free irinotecan.

Trial data suggested a better overall response rate, a slight progression-free survival advantage, and potentially fewer adverse events with the liposomal formulation.

The substitution, however, raises the cost of treatment substantially. According to one estimate, a single cycle of FOLFIRINOX costs about $500 at a body surface area of 2 m², while the equivalent single cycle of NALIRIFOX costs $7800 — over 15-fold more expensive.

While some oncologists have called the NALIRIFOX regimen a potential new standard first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, others have expressed serious doubts about whether the potential benefits are worth the extra cost.

“I can’t really see a single scenario where I would recommend NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX” Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and pancreatic cancer researcher at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization. “Most of us in the academic setting have the same take on this.”
 

No Head-to-Head Comparison

Uncertainty surrounding the benefits of NALIRIFOX is largely driven by the fact that NALIRIFOX wasn’t compared with FOLFIRINOX in the phase 3 trial that won liposomal irinotecan approval.

Instead, the 770-patient NAPOLI 3 trial compared NALIRIFOX — which also includes oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin — with a two-drug regimen, nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. In the trial, overall survival and other outcomes were moderately better with NALIRIFOX.

Oncologists have said that the true value of the trial is that it conclusively demonstrates that a four-drug regimen is superior to a two-drug regimen for patients who can tolerate the more intensive therapy.

Eileen M. O’Reilly, MD, the senior investigator on NAPOLI 3, made this point when she presented the phase 3 results at the 2023 ASCO annual meeting.

The trial “answers the question of four drugs versus two” for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer but “does not address the question of NALIRIFOX versus FOLFIRINOX,” said Dr. O’Reilly, a pancreatic and hepatobiliary oncologist and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

Comparing them directly in the study “probably wouldn’t have been in the interest of the sponsor,” said Dr. O’Reilly.

With no head-to-head comparison, oncologists have been comparing NAPOLI 3 results with those from PRODIGE 4, the 2011 trial that won FOLFIRINOX its place as a first-line regimen.

When comparing the trials, median overall survival was exactly the same for the two regimens — 11.1 months. FOLFIRINOX was associated with a slightly higher 1-year survival rate — 48.4% with FOLFIRINOX vs 45.6% with NALIRIFOX.

However, Dr. O’Reilly and her colleagues also highlighted comparisons between the two trials that favored NAPOLI 3.

NAPOLI 3 had no age limit, while PRODIGE subjects were no older than 75 years. Median progression-free survival was 1 month longer among patients receiving NALIRIFOX — 7.4 months vs 6.4 months in PRODIGE — and overall response rates were higher as well — 41.8% in NAPOLI 3 vs 31.6%. Patients receiving NALIRIFOX also had lower rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (23.8% vs 45.7%, respectively) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.5% vs 9.0%, respectively).

The authors explained that the lower rate of neuropathy could be because NALIRIFOX uses a lower dose of oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), at 60 mg/m² instead of 85 mg/m².
 

Is It Worth It?

During a presentation of the phase 3 findings last year, study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

The study discussant, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, agreed that the results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as “the new standard for fit patients.”

However, other oncologists remain skeptical about the benefits of the new regimen over FOLFIRINOX for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

In a recent editorial, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and University of Utah gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Nevala-Plagemann, MD, compared the evidence for both regimens.

The experts pointed out that overall response rates were assessed by investigators in NAPOLI 3 and not by an independent review committee, as in PRODIGE 4, and might have been overestimated.

Although the lack of an age limit was touted as a benefit of NAPOLI 3, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann doubt whether enough patients over 75 years old participated to draw any meaningful conclusions about using NALIRIFOX in older, frailer patients. If anything, patients in PRODIGE 4 might have been less fit because, among other things, the trial allowed patients with serum albumins < 3 g/dL.

On the adverse event front, the authors highlighted the higher incidences of grade 3 or worse diarrhea with NALIRIFOX (20% vs 12.7%) and questioned if there truly is less neutropenia with NALIRIFOX because high-risk patients in NAPOLI 3 were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent it. The pair also questioned whether the differences in neuropathy rates between the two trials were big enough to be clinically meaningful.

Insights from a recent meta-analysis may further clarify some of the lingering questions about the efficacy of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX.

In the analysis, the team found no meaningful difference in overall and progression-free survival between the two regimens. Differences in rates of peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were not statistically significant, but NALIRIFOX did carry a statistically significant advantage in lower rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and vomiting.

The team concluded that “NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX may provide equal efficacy as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer, but with different toxicity profiles,” and called for careful patient selection when choosing between the two regimens as well as consideration of financial toxicity.

Dr. Garrido-Laguna had a different take. With the current data, NALIRIFOX does not seem to “add anything substantially different to what we already” have with FOLFIRINOX, he told this news organization. Given that, “we can’t really justify NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX without more of a head-to-head comparison.”

The higher cost of NALIRIFOX, in particular, remains a major drawback.

“We think it would be an economic disservice to our healthcare systems if we used NALIRIFOX instead of FOLFIRINOX for these patients on the basis of [NAPOLI 3] data,” Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, and Christopher Booth, MD, gastrointestinal oncologists at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, said in a recent essay.

Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann reiterated this concern.

Overall, “NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar but rather exposes patients and healthcare systems to financial toxicities,” Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann wrote in their review.

NAPOLI 3 was funded by Ipsen and PRODIGE 4 was funded by the government of France. No funding source was reported for the meta-analysis. NAPOLI 3 investigators included Ipsen employees. Dr. O’Reilly disclosed grants or contracts from Ipsen and many other companies. Dr. Garrido-Laguna reported institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies, but not Ipsen. Dr. Nevala-Plagemann is an advisor for Seagen and reported institutional research funding from Theriva. Dr. Gyawali is a consultant for Vivio Health; Dr. Booth had no disclosures. Two meta-analysis authors reported grants or personal fees from Ipsen as well as ties to other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The next frontier in cancer detection could be the humble urine test.

Emerging science suggests that the body’s “liquid gold” could be particularly useful for liquid biopsies, offering a convenient, pain-free, and cost-effective way to spot otherwise hard-to-detect cancers.

“The search for cancer biomarkers that can be detected in urine could provide an enormous step forward to decrease cancer patient mortality,” said Kenneth R. Shroyer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, who studies cancer biomarkers.

Physicians have long known that urine can reveal a lot about our health — that’s why urinalysis has been part of medicine for 6000 years. Urine tests can detect diabetes, pregnancy, drug use, and urinary or kidney conditions.

But other conditions leave clues in urine, too, and cancer may be one of the most promising. “Urine testing could detect biomarkers of early-stage cancers, not only from local but also distant sites,” Dr. Shroyer said. It could also help flag recurrence in cancer survivors who have undergone treatment.

Granted, cancer biomarkers in urine are not nearly as widely studied as those in the blood, Dr. Shroyer noted. But a new wave of urine tests suggests research is gaining pace.

“The recent availability of high-throughput screening technologies has enabled researchers to investigate cancer from a top-down, comprehensive approach,” said Pak Kin Wong, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and surgery at The Pennsylvania State University. “We are starting to understand the rich information that can be obtained from urine.”

Urine is mostly water (about 95%) and urea, a metabolic byproduct that imparts that signature yellow color (about 2%). The other 3% is a mix of waste products, minerals, and other compounds the kidneys removed from the blood. Even in trace amounts, these substances say a lot.

Among them are “exfoliated cancer cells, cell-free DNA, hormones, and the urine microbiota — the collection of microbes in our urinary tract system,” Dr. Wong said.

“It is highly promising to be one of the major biological fluids used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring treatment efficiency in the era of precision medicine,” Dr. Wong said.

How Urine Testing Could Reveal Cancer

Still, as exciting as the prospect is, there’s a lot to consider in the hunt for cancer biomarkers in urine. These biomarkers must be able to pass through the renal nephrons (filtering units), remain stable in urine, and have high-level sensitivity, Dr. Shroyer said. They should also have high specificity for cancer vs benign conditions and be expressed at early stages, before the primary tumor has spread.

“At this stage, few circulating biomarkers have been found that are both sensitive and specific for early-stage disease,” said Dr. Shroyer.

But there are a few promising examples under investigation in humans:

Prostate cancer. Researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a urine test that detects high-grade prostate cancer more accurately than existing tests, including PHI, SelectMDx, 4Kscore, EPI, MPS, and IsoPSA.

The MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPS2) test, which looks for 18 genes associated with high-grade tumors, could reduce unnecessary biopsies in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, according to a paper published in JAMA Oncology.

It makes sense. The prostate gland secretes fluid that becomes part of the semen, traces of which enter urine. After a digital rectal exam, even more prostate fluid enters the urine. If a patient has prostate cancer, genetic material from the cancer cells will infiltrate the urine.

In the MPS2 test, researchers used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in urine. “The technology used for COVID PCR is essentially the same as the PCR used to detect transcripts associated with high-grade prostate cancer in urine,” said study author Arul Chinnaiyan, MD, PhD, director of the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “In the case of the MPS2 test, we are doing PCR on 18 genes simultaneously on urine samples.”

A statistical model uses levels of that genetic material to predict the risk for high-grade disease, helping doctors decide what to do next. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model could eliminate 35%-45% of unnecessary biopsies, compared with 15%-30% for the other tests, and reduce repeat biopsies by 46%-51%, compared with 9%-21% for the other tests.

Head and neck cancer. In a paper published in JCI Insight, researchers described a test that finds ultra-short fragments of DNA in urine to enable early detection of head and neck cancers caused by human papillomavirus.

“Our data show that a relatively small volume of urine (30-60 mL) gives overall detection results comparable to a tube of blood,” said study author Muneesh Tewari, MD, PhD, professor of hematology and oncology at the University of Michigan .

A larger volume of urine could potentially “make cancer detection even more sensitive than blood,” Dr. Tewari said, “allowing cancers to be detected at the earliest stages when they are more curable.”

The team used a technique called droplet digital PCR to detect DNA fragments that are “ultra-short” (less than 50 base pairs long) and usually missed by conventional PCR testing. This transrenal cell-free tumor DNA, which travels from the tumor into the bloodstream, is broken down small enough to pass through the kidneys and into the urine. But the fragments are still long enough to carry information about the tumor’s genetic signature.

This test could spot cancer before a tumor grows big enough — about a centimeter wide and carrying a billion cells — to spot on a CT scan or other imaging test. “When we are instead detecting fragments of DNA released from a tumor,” said Dr. Tewari, “our testing methods are very sensitive and can detect DNA in urine that came from just 5-10 cells in a tumor that died and released their DNA into the blood, which then made its way into the urine.”

Pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the deadliest cancers, largely because it is diagnosed so late. A urine panel now in clinical trials could help doctors diagnose the cancer before it has spread so more people can have the tumor surgically removed, improving prognosis.

Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test, a common lab method that detects antibodies and other proteins, the team measured expression levels for three genes (LYVE1, REG1B, and TFF1) in urine samples collected from people up to 5 years before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The researchers combined this result with patients’ urinary creatinine levels, a common component of existing urinalysis, and their age to develop a risk score.

This score performed similarly to an existing blood test, CA19-9, in predicting patients’ risk for pancreatic cancer up to 1 year before diagnosis. When combined with CA19-9, the urinary panel helped spot cancer up to 2 years before diagnosis.

According to a paper in the International Journal of Cancer, “the urine panel and affiliated PancRISK are currently being validated in a prospective clinical study (UroPanc).” If all goes well, they could be implemented in clinical practice in a few years as a “noninvasive stratification tool” to identify patients for further testing, speeding up diagnosis, and saving lives.

Limitations and Promises

Each cancer type is different, and more research is needed to map out which substances in urine predict which cancers and to develop tests for mass adoption. “There are medical and technological hurdles to the large-scale implementation of urine analysis for complex diseases such as cancer,” said Dr. Wong.

One possibility: Scientists and clinicians could collaborate and use artificial intelligence techniques to combine urine test results with other data.

“It is likely that future diagnostics may combine urine with other biological samples such as feces and saliva, among others,” said Dr. Wong. “This is especially true when novel data science and machine learning techniques can integrate comprehensive data from patients that span genetic, proteomic, metabolic, microbiomic, and even behavioral data to evaluate a patient’s condition.”

One thing that excites Dr. Tewari about urine-based cancer testing: “We think it could be especially impactful for patients living in rural areas or other areas with less access to healthcare services,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The next frontier in cancer detection could be the humble urine test.

Emerging science suggests that the body’s “liquid gold” could be particularly useful for liquid biopsies, offering a convenient, pain-free, and cost-effective way to spot otherwise hard-to-detect cancers.

“The search for cancer biomarkers that can be detected in urine could provide an enormous step forward to decrease cancer patient mortality,” said Kenneth R. Shroyer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, who studies cancer biomarkers.

Physicians have long known that urine can reveal a lot about our health — that’s why urinalysis has been part of medicine for 6000 years. Urine tests can detect diabetes, pregnancy, drug use, and urinary or kidney conditions.

But other conditions leave clues in urine, too, and cancer may be one of the most promising. “Urine testing could detect biomarkers of early-stage cancers, not only from local but also distant sites,” Dr. Shroyer said. It could also help flag recurrence in cancer survivors who have undergone treatment.

Granted, cancer biomarkers in urine are not nearly as widely studied as those in the blood, Dr. Shroyer noted. But a new wave of urine tests suggests research is gaining pace.

“The recent availability of high-throughput screening technologies has enabled researchers to investigate cancer from a top-down, comprehensive approach,” said Pak Kin Wong, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and surgery at The Pennsylvania State University. “We are starting to understand the rich information that can be obtained from urine.”

Urine is mostly water (about 95%) and urea, a metabolic byproduct that imparts that signature yellow color (about 2%). The other 3% is a mix of waste products, minerals, and other compounds the kidneys removed from the blood. Even in trace amounts, these substances say a lot.

Among them are “exfoliated cancer cells, cell-free DNA, hormones, and the urine microbiota — the collection of microbes in our urinary tract system,” Dr. Wong said.

“It is highly promising to be one of the major biological fluids used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring treatment efficiency in the era of precision medicine,” Dr. Wong said.

How Urine Testing Could Reveal Cancer

Still, as exciting as the prospect is, there’s a lot to consider in the hunt for cancer biomarkers in urine. These biomarkers must be able to pass through the renal nephrons (filtering units), remain stable in urine, and have high-level sensitivity, Dr. Shroyer said. They should also have high specificity for cancer vs benign conditions and be expressed at early stages, before the primary tumor has spread.

“At this stage, few circulating biomarkers have been found that are both sensitive and specific for early-stage disease,” said Dr. Shroyer.

But there are a few promising examples under investigation in humans:

Prostate cancer. Researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a urine test that detects high-grade prostate cancer more accurately than existing tests, including PHI, SelectMDx, 4Kscore, EPI, MPS, and IsoPSA.

The MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPS2) test, which looks for 18 genes associated with high-grade tumors, could reduce unnecessary biopsies in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, according to a paper published in JAMA Oncology.

It makes sense. The prostate gland secretes fluid that becomes part of the semen, traces of which enter urine. After a digital rectal exam, even more prostate fluid enters the urine. If a patient has prostate cancer, genetic material from the cancer cells will infiltrate the urine.

In the MPS2 test, researchers used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in urine. “The technology used for COVID PCR is essentially the same as the PCR used to detect transcripts associated with high-grade prostate cancer in urine,” said study author Arul Chinnaiyan, MD, PhD, director of the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “In the case of the MPS2 test, we are doing PCR on 18 genes simultaneously on urine samples.”

A statistical model uses levels of that genetic material to predict the risk for high-grade disease, helping doctors decide what to do next. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model could eliminate 35%-45% of unnecessary biopsies, compared with 15%-30% for the other tests, and reduce repeat biopsies by 46%-51%, compared with 9%-21% for the other tests.

Head and neck cancer. In a paper published in JCI Insight, researchers described a test that finds ultra-short fragments of DNA in urine to enable early detection of head and neck cancers caused by human papillomavirus.

“Our data show that a relatively small volume of urine (30-60 mL) gives overall detection results comparable to a tube of blood,” said study author Muneesh Tewari, MD, PhD, professor of hematology and oncology at the University of Michigan .

A larger volume of urine could potentially “make cancer detection even more sensitive than blood,” Dr. Tewari said, “allowing cancers to be detected at the earliest stages when they are more curable.”

The team used a technique called droplet digital PCR to detect DNA fragments that are “ultra-short” (less than 50 base pairs long) and usually missed by conventional PCR testing. This transrenal cell-free tumor DNA, which travels from the tumor into the bloodstream, is broken down small enough to pass through the kidneys and into the urine. But the fragments are still long enough to carry information about the tumor’s genetic signature.

This test could spot cancer before a tumor grows big enough — about a centimeter wide and carrying a billion cells — to spot on a CT scan or other imaging test. “When we are instead detecting fragments of DNA released from a tumor,” said Dr. Tewari, “our testing methods are very sensitive and can detect DNA in urine that came from just 5-10 cells in a tumor that died and released their DNA into the blood, which then made its way into the urine.”

Pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the deadliest cancers, largely because it is diagnosed so late. A urine panel now in clinical trials could help doctors diagnose the cancer before it has spread so more people can have the tumor surgically removed, improving prognosis.

Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test, a common lab method that detects antibodies and other proteins, the team measured expression levels for three genes (LYVE1, REG1B, and TFF1) in urine samples collected from people up to 5 years before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The researchers combined this result with patients’ urinary creatinine levels, a common component of existing urinalysis, and their age to develop a risk score.

This score performed similarly to an existing blood test, CA19-9, in predicting patients’ risk for pancreatic cancer up to 1 year before diagnosis. When combined with CA19-9, the urinary panel helped spot cancer up to 2 years before diagnosis.

According to a paper in the International Journal of Cancer, “the urine panel and affiliated PancRISK are currently being validated in a prospective clinical study (UroPanc).” If all goes well, they could be implemented in clinical practice in a few years as a “noninvasive stratification tool” to identify patients for further testing, speeding up diagnosis, and saving lives.

Limitations and Promises

Each cancer type is different, and more research is needed to map out which substances in urine predict which cancers and to develop tests for mass adoption. “There are medical and technological hurdles to the large-scale implementation of urine analysis for complex diseases such as cancer,” said Dr. Wong.

One possibility: Scientists and clinicians could collaborate and use artificial intelligence techniques to combine urine test results with other data.

“It is likely that future diagnostics may combine urine with other biological samples such as feces and saliva, among others,” said Dr. Wong. “This is especially true when novel data science and machine learning techniques can integrate comprehensive data from patients that span genetic, proteomic, metabolic, microbiomic, and even behavioral data to evaluate a patient’s condition.”

One thing that excites Dr. Tewari about urine-based cancer testing: “We think it could be especially impactful for patients living in rural areas or other areas with less access to healthcare services,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The next frontier in cancer detection could be the humble urine test.

Emerging science suggests that the body’s “liquid gold” could be particularly useful for liquid biopsies, offering a convenient, pain-free, and cost-effective way to spot otherwise hard-to-detect cancers.

“The search for cancer biomarkers that can be detected in urine could provide an enormous step forward to decrease cancer patient mortality,” said Kenneth R. Shroyer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, who studies cancer biomarkers.

Physicians have long known that urine can reveal a lot about our health — that’s why urinalysis has been part of medicine for 6000 years. Urine tests can detect diabetes, pregnancy, drug use, and urinary or kidney conditions.

But other conditions leave clues in urine, too, and cancer may be one of the most promising. “Urine testing could detect biomarkers of early-stage cancers, not only from local but also distant sites,” Dr. Shroyer said. It could also help flag recurrence in cancer survivors who have undergone treatment.

Granted, cancer biomarkers in urine are not nearly as widely studied as those in the blood, Dr. Shroyer noted. But a new wave of urine tests suggests research is gaining pace.

“The recent availability of high-throughput screening technologies has enabled researchers to investigate cancer from a top-down, comprehensive approach,” said Pak Kin Wong, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and surgery at The Pennsylvania State University. “We are starting to understand the rich information that can be obtained from urine.”

Urine is mostly water (about 95%) and urea, a metabolic byproduct that imparts that signature yellow color (about 2%). The other 3% is a mix of waste products, minerals, and other compounds the kidneys removed from the blood. Even in trace amounts, these substances say a lot.

Among them are “exfoliated cancer cells, cell-free DNA, hormones, and the urine microbiota — the collection of microbes in our urinary tract system,” Dr. Wong said.

“It is highly promising to be one of the major biological fluids used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring treatment efficiency in the era of precision medicine,” Dr. Wong said.

How Urine Testing Could Reveal Cancer

Still, as exciting as the prospect is, there’s a lot to consider in the hunt for cancer biomarkers in urine. These biomarkers must be able to pass through the renal nephrons (filtering units), remain stable in urine, and have high-level sensitivity, Dr. Shroyer said. They should also have high specificity for cancer vs benign conditions and be expressed at early stages, before the primary tumor has spread.

“At this stage, few circulating biomarkers have been found that are both sensitive and specific for early-stage disease,” said Dr. Shroyer.

But there are a few promising examples under investigation in humans:

Prostate cancer. Researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a urine test that detects high-grade prostate cancer more accurately than existing tests, including PHI, SelectMDx, 4Kscore, EPI, MPS, and IsoPSA.

The MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPS2) test, which looks for 18 genes associated with high-grade tumors, could reduce unnecessary biopsies in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, according to a paper published in JAMA Oncology.

It makes sense. The prostate gland secretes fluid that becomes part of the semen, traces of which enter urine. After a digital rectal exam, even more prostate fluid enters the urine. If a patient has prostate cancer, genetic material from the cancer cells will infiltrate the urine.

In the MPS2 test, researchers used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in urine. “The technology used for COVID PCR is essentially the same as the PCR used to detect transcripts associated with high-grade prostate cancer in urine,” said study author Arul Chinnaiyan, MD, PhD, director of the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “In the case of the MPS2 test, we are doing PCR on 18 genes simultaneously on urine samples.”

A statistical model uses levels of that genetic material to predict the risk for high-grade disease, helping doctors decide what to do next. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model could eliminate 35%-45% of unnecessary biopsies, compared with 15%-30% for the other tests, and reduce repeat biopsies by 46%-51%, compared with 9%-21% for the other tests.

Head and neck cancer. In a paper published in JCI Insight, researchers described a test that finds ultra-short fragments of DNA in urine to enable early detection of head and neck cancers caused by human papillomavirus.

“Our data show that a relatively small volume of urine (30-60 mL) gives overall detection results comparable to a tube of blood,” said study author Muneesh Tewari, MD, PhD, professor of hematology and oncology at the University of Michigan .

A larger volume of urine could potentially “make cancer detection even more sensitive than blood,” Dr. Tewari said, “allowing cancers to be detected at the earliest stages when they are more curable.”

The team used a technique called droplet digital PCR to detect DNA fragments that are “ultra-short” (less than 50 base pairs long) and usually missed by conventional PCR testing. This transrenal cell-free tumor DNA, which travels from the tumor into the bloodstream, is broken down small enough to pass through the kidneys and into the urine. But the fragments are still long enough to carry information about the tumor’s genetic signature.

This test could spot cancer before a tumor grows big enough — about a centimeter wide and carrying a billion cells — to spot on a CT scan or other imaging test. “When we are instead detecting fragments of DNA released from a tumor,” said Dr. Tewari, “our testing methods are very sensitive and can detect DNA in urine that came from just 5-10 cells in a tumor that died and released their DNA into the blood, which then made its way into the urine.”

Pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the deadliest cancers, largely because it is diagnosed so late. A urine panel now in clinical trials could help doctors diagnose the cancer before it has spread so more people can have the tumor surgically removed, improving prognosis.

Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test, a common lab method that detects antibodies and other proteins, the team measured expression levels for three genes (LYVE1, REG1B, and TFF1) in urine samples collected from people up to 5 years before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The researchers combined this result with patients’ urinary creatinine levels, a common component of existing urinalysis, and their age to develop a risk score.

This score performed similarly to an existing blood test, CA19-9, in predicting patients’ risk for pancreatic cancer up to 1 year before diagnosis. When combined with CA19-9, the urinary panel helped spot cancer up to 2 years before diagnosis.

According to a paper in the International Journal of Cancer, “the urine panel and affiliated PancRISK are currently being validated in a prospective clinical study (UroPanc).” If all goes well, they could be implemented in clinical practice in a few years as a “noninvasive stratification tool” to identify patients for further testing, speeding up diagnosis, and saving lives.

Limitations and Promises

Each cancer type is different, and more research is needed to map out which substances in urine predict which cancers and to develop tests for mass adoption. “There are medical and technological hurdles to the large-scale implementation of urine analysis for complex diseases such as cancer,” said Dr. Wong.

One possibility: Scientists and clinicians could collaborate and use artificial intelligence techniques to combine urine test results with other data.

“It is likely that future diagnostics may combine urine with other biological samples such as feces and saliva, among others,” said Dr. Wong. “This is especially true when novel data science and machine learning techniques can integrate comprehensive data from patients that span genetic, proteomic, metabolic, microbiomic, and even behavioral data to evaluate a patient’s condition.”

One thing that excites Dr. Tewari about urine-based cancer testing: “We think it could be especially impactful for patients living in rural areas or other areas with less access to healthcare services,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast cancer mortality was significantly lower among patients who used statins than in those who did not use these cholesterol-lowering drugs, a new study finds.

Previous research examining the association between cholesterol and breast cancer metabolism suggests that cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins may improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, Sixten Harborg, a medical student and PhD student at Aarhus University, Denmark, said in a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

In addition, cardiovascular-related death is the second most common cause of death for breast cancer survivors, and given the survival rates in early breast cancer, there is a demand for cardioprotective initiatives and maintenance of cardioprotective drugs after diagnosis, he said in an interview.
 

What Is Known About Statins and Breast Cancer?

Statins are the most common drugs used to lower cholesterol and may deprive tumor cells of the cholesterol needed for cell membrane synthesis, Mr. Harborg said in his presentation.

Data from a randomized trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017 showed significantly improved disease-free survival, breast cancer–free interval, and distant recurrence–free interval in early stage breast cancer patients randomized to cholesterol-lowering medication vs. those who did not receive cholesterol-lowering medication.

The 2017 study prompted the creation of the MASTER study, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing standard adjuvant therapy plus placebo to standard adjuvant therapy plus atorvastatin in patients with early breast cancer (NCT04601116), Mr. Harborg said. The MASTER trial is currently recruiting patients in Denmark.
 

How Was the Current Study Designed?

To provide preliminary analysis, Mr. Harborg and colleagues used an emulation trial design based on electronic health care data from 110,160 females with a diagnosis of stage I, II, or III breast cancer who were part of the Danish Breast Cancer Group, a national clinical registry in Denmark, between 2000 and 2020.

As defined in the European Journal of Epidemiology in 2017, target trial emulation involves application of randomized trial designs to observational data with the goal of improving the quality of observational epidemiology when a comparator trial is not yet available.

The researchers created a cohort of patients based on electronic health care data to simulate a target trial of the use of atorvastatin after breast cancer diagnosis. Patients were randomized to one of two treatment strategies: starting to use statins within 36 months of diagnosis, or not using statins. The primary outcome was death from breast cancer. The follow-up for the MASTER study starts with inclusion and ends with death, emigration from Denmark, end of clinical follow-up, or 10 years of follow-up (whichever comes first); the follow-up was the same in the current study.

The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer mortality in statin users vs. non–statin users and used a technique known as inverse-probability of censoring-weighting (IPCW) to estimate the effects of statin use based on prognostic factors.
 

What Did the Results Show?

The results favored statin use for improved survival in early breast cancer patients, Mr. Harborg said. Overall, the hazard ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.96 in statin users compared with non–statin users, and was similar in both a Cox regression analysis (HR 0.81), and in a 10-year landmark analysis (HR 0.86).

The difference in mortality between statin and non–statin users was even stronger in patients who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.94, 0.64, and 0.76 on the IPCW, Cox, and landmark analyses, respectively).

The results were in line with previous reports of statins’ effect on breast cancer survival, Mr. Harborg said in an interview.

“We believe the results encourage the continuous effort of the currently enrolling MASTER trial,” he said.

The results also suggest that deprescribing statins at the time of breast cancer diagnosis is not recommended, and that statin treatment can safely be prescribed to breast cancer patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk and/or dyslipidemia, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

“The clinical takeaway from our study is that statin use is associated with reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, but that it is not possible to determine the true effect of statins on breast cancer survival without a randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” Mr. Harborg told this publication. “Statins are inexpensive and well-tolerated drugs and may have a beneficial effect in terms of survival for breast cancer patients. However, with the current level of evidence [because the MASTER study is ongoing], we still cannot recommend that oncologists prescribe statins to prevent mortality from breast cancer,” he said.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The findings were limited by the study design, and real-world data are needed, Dr. Harborg said. Other limitations include the presence of residual bias, and the use of data based on prescription codes, but these were not considered to have an effect on the main conclusion of the study, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.

However, the results suggest that the addition of statins may improve outcomes for early breast cancer patients, especially when used with chemotherapy, and support the value of the ongoing MASTER study, he concluded.

Ultimately, the MASTER study will provide a more definitive answer to the question of whether statins should be added to the adjuvant treatment regimen of breast cancer to improve breast cancer outcomes, he said.
 

What Do Clinicians Think of the Study?

The current study is timely and highlights the need for phase 3 trials to examine the potential of statin use for breast cancer outcomes, Malinda T. West, MD, a medical oncologist and breast oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said in an interview.

Questions for future research include whether statins can be used in combination with adjuvant abemaciclib if indicated, or how to best sequence these agents, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study. Other questions raised by the current study include whether other cholesterol-lowering agents have a potential adjuvant benefit in reducing breast cancer recurrent and/or mortality, and whether the addition of statins would benefit subgroups such as HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer, she said.

“I was not surprised to see another study reporting benefit with statins and reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and/or mortality, but I think the larger question is defining the subgroups who benefit the most, and identifying predictors for benefit or resistance,” Dr. West said in an interview.

Previous studies have shown that cholesterol elevation, specifically LDL levels, can be linked to increased tumor growth in breast cancer, so the lower mortality risk associated with lipid-lowering therapies in the current study was consistent, Peyton L. Reves, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow, also at the University of Wisconsin, said in an interview. In practice, data from the current study and previous research could be especially useful for patients with elevated LDL levels, said Dr. Reves, who was not involved in the study.

“These results could impact clinical practice in many ways, including leading to routine cholesterol monitoring in breast cancer patients on adjuvant therapy as well as the addition of lipid-lowering therapy with statins in these patients,” Dr. Reves said.

The findings showing particular benefit for patients on adjuvant chemotherapy highlight the need for more research on this specific population and the effect of statins on overall breast cancer mortality, to explore the extent to which the results of the current study were driven by the benefit seen in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Reves said.

The study was supported by Director Michael Hermann Nielsen’s Memorial Grant, Manufacturer Einar Willumsen’s Memorial Grant, Astrid Thaysen’s Grant for Medical Basic Research, Eva and Henry Fraenkel’s Memorial Fund, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. West and Dr. Reves had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Breast cancer mortality was significantly lower among patients who used statins than in those who did not use these cholesterol-lowering drugs, a new study finds.

Previous research examining the association between cholesterol and breast cancer metabolism suggests that cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins may improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, Sixten Harborg, a medical student and PhD student at Aarhus University, Denmark, said in a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

In addition, cardiovascular-related death is the second most common cause of death for breast cancer survivors, and given the survival rates in early breast cancer, there is a demand for cardioprotective initiatives and maintenance of cardioprotective drugs after diagnosis, he said in an interview.
 

What Is Known About Statins and Breast Cancer?

Statins are the most common drugs used to lower cholesterol and may deprive tumor cells of the cholesterol needed for cell membrane synthesis, Mr. Harborg said in his presentation.

Data from a randomized trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017 showed significantly improved disease-free survival, breast cancer–free interval, and distant recurrence–free interval in early stage breast cancer patients randomized to cholesterol-lowering medication vs. those who did not receive cholesterol-lowering medication.

The 2017 study prompted the creation of the MASTER study, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing standard adjuvant therapy plus placebo to standard adjuvant therapy plus atorvastatin in patients with early breast cancer (NCT04601116), Mr. Harborg said. The MASTER trial is currently recruiting patients in Denmark.
 

How Was the Current Study Designed?

To provide preliminary analysis, Mr. Harborg and colleagues used an emulation trial design based on electronic health care data from 110,160 females with a diagnosis of stage I, II, or III breast cancer who were part of the Danish Breast Cancer Group, a national clinical registry in Denmark, between 2000 and 2020.

As defined in the European Journal of Epidemiology in 2017, target trial emulation involves application of randomized trial designs to observational data with the goal of improving the quality of observational epidemiology when a comparator trial is not yet available.

The researchers created a cohort of patients based on electronic health care data to simulate a target trial of the use of atorvastatin after breast cancer diagnosis. Patients were randomized to one of two treatment strategies: starting to use statins within 36 months of diagnosis, or not using statins. The primary outcome was death from breast cancer. The follow-up for the MASTER study starts with inclusion and ends with death, emigration from Denmark, end of clinical follow-up, or 10 years of follow-up (whichever comes first); the follow-up was the same in the current study.

The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer mortality in statin users vs. non–statin users and used a technique known as inverse-probability of censoring-weighting (IPCW) to estimate the effects of statin use based on prognostic factors.
 

What Did the Results Show?

The results favored statin use for improved survival in early breast cancer patients, Mr. Harborg said. Overall, the hazard ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.96 in statin users compared with non–statin users, and was similar in both a Cox regression analysis (HR 0.81), and in a 10-year landmark analysis (HR 0.86).

The difference in mortality between statin and non–statin users was even stronger in patients who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.94, 0.64, and 0.76 on the IPCW, Cox, and landmark analyses, respectively).

The results were in line with previous reports of statins’ effect on breast cancer survival, Mr. Harborg said in an interview.

“We believe the results encourage the continuous effort of the currently enrolling MASTER trial,” he said.

The results also suggest that deprescribing statins at the time of breast cancer diagnosis is not recommended, and that statin treatment can safely be prescribed to breast cancer patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk and/or dyslipidemia, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

“The clinical takeaway from our study is that statin use is associated with reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, but that it is not possible to determine the true effect of statins on breast cancer survival without a randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” Mr. Harborg told this publication. “Statins are inexpensive and well-tolerated drugs and may have a beneficial effect in terms of survival for breast cancer patients. However, with the current level of evidence [because the MASTER study is ongoing], we still cannot recommend that oncologists prescribe statins to prevent mortality from breast cancer,” he said.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The findings were limited by the study design, and real-world data are needed, Dr. Harborg said. Other limitations include the presence of residual bias, and the use of data based on prescription codes, but these were not considered to have an effect on the main conclusion of the study, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.

However, the results suggest that the addition of statins may improve outcomes for early breast cancer patients, especially when used with chemotherapy, and support the value of the ongoing MASTER study, he concluded.

Ultimately, the MASTER study will provide a more definitive answer to the question of whether statins should be added to the adjuvant treatment regimen of breast cancer to improve breast cancer outcomes, he said.
 

What Do Clinicians Think of the Study?

The current study is timely and highlights the need for phase 3 trials to examine the potential of statin use for breast cancer outcomes, Malinda T. West, MD, a medical oncologist and breast oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said in an interview.

Questions for future research include whether statins can be used in combination with adjuvant abemaciclib if indicated, or how to best sequence these agents, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study. Other questions raised by the current study include whether other cholesterol-lowering agents have a potential adjuvant benefit in reducing breast cancer recurrent and/or mortality, and whether the addition of statins would benefit subgroups such as HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer, she said.

“I was not surprised to see another study reporting benefit with statins and reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and/or mortality, but I think the larger question is defining the subgroups who benefit the most, and identifying predictors for benefit or resistance,” Dr. West said in an interview.

Previous studies have shown that cholesterol elevation, specifically LDL levels, can be linked to increased tumor growth in breast cancer, so the lower mortality risk associated with lipid-lowering therapies in the current study was consistent, Peyton L. Reves, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow, also at the University of Wisconsin, said in an interview. In practice, data from the current study and previous research could be especially useful for patients with elevated LDL levels, said Dr. Reves, who was not involved in the study.

“These results could impact clinical practice in many ways, including leading to routine cholesterol monitoring in breast cancer patients on adjuvant therapy as well as the addition of lipid-lowering therapy with statins in these patients,” Dr. Reves said.

The findings showing particular benefit for patients on adjuvant chemotherapy highlight the need for more research on this specific population and the effect of statins on overall breast cancer mortality, to explore the extent to which the results of the current study were driven by the benefit seen in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Reves said.

The study was supported by Director Michael Hermann Nielsen’s Memorial Grant, Manufacturer Einar Willumsen’s Memorial Grant, Astrid Thaysen’s Grant for Medical Basic Research, Eva and Henry Fraenkel’s Memorial Fund, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. West and Dr. Reves had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Breast cancer mortality was significantly lower among patients who used statins than in those who did not use these cholesterol-lowering drugs, a new study finds.

Previous research examining the association between cholesterol and breast cancer metabolism suggests that cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins may improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, Sixten Harborg, a medical student and PhD student at Aarhus University, Denmark, said in a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

In addition, cardiovascular-related death is the second most common cause of death for breast cancer survivors, and given the survival rates in early breast cancer, there is a demand for cardioprotective initiatives and maintenance of cardioprotective drugs after diagnosis, he said in an interview.
 

What Is Known About Statins and Breast Cancer?

Statins are the most common drugs used to lower cholesterol and may deprive tumor cells of the cholesterol needed for cell membrane synthesis, Mr. Harborg said in his presentation.

Data from a randomized trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017 showed significantly improved disease-free survival, breast cancer–free interval, and distant recurrence–free interval in early stage breast cancer patients randomized to cholesterol-lowering medication vs. those who did not receive cholesterol-lowering medication.

The 2017 study prompted the creation of the MASTER study, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing standard adjuvant therapy plus placebo to standard adjuvant therapy plus atorvastatin in patients with early breast cancer (NCT04601116), Mr. Harborg said. The MASTER trial is currently recruiting patients in Denmark.
 

How Was the Current Study Designed?

To provide preliminary analysis, Mr. Harborg and colleagues used an emulation trial design based on electronic health care data from 110,160 females with a diagnosis of stage I, II, or III breast cancer who were part of the Danish Breast Cancer Group, a national clinical registry in Denmark, between 2000 and 2020.

As defined in the European Journal of Epidemiology in 2017, target trial emulation involves application of randomized trial designs to observational data with the goal of improving the quality of observational epidemiology when a comparator trial is not yet available.

The researchers created a cohort of patients based on electronic health care data to simulate a target trial of the use of atorvastatin after breast cancer diagnosis. Patients were randomized to one of two treatment strategies: starting to use statins within 36 months of diagnosis, or not using statins. The primary outcome was death from breast cancer. The follow-up for the MASTER study starts with inclusion and ends with death, emigration from Denmark, end of clinical follow-up, or 10 years of follow-up (whichever comes first); the follow-up was the same in the current study.

The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer mortality in statin users vs. non–statin users and used a technique known as inverse-probability of censoring-weighting (IPCW) to estimate the effects of statin use based on prognostic factors.
 

What Did the Results Show?

The results favored statin use for improved survival in early breast cancer patients, Mr. Harborg said. Overall, the hazard ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.96 in statin users compared with non–statin users, and was similar in both a Cox regression analysis (HR 0.81), and in a 10-year landmark analysis (HR 0.86).

The difference in mortality between statin and non–statin users was even stronger in patients who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.94, 0.64, and 0.76 on the IPCW, Cox, and landmark analyses, respectively).

The results were in line with previous reports of statins’ effect on breast cancer survival, Mr. Harborg said in an interview.

“We believe the results encourage the continuous effort of the currently enrolling MASTER trial,” he said.

The results also suggest that deprescribing statins at the time of breast cancer diagnosis is not recommended, and that statin treatment can safely be prescribed to breast cancer patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk and/or dyslipidemia, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

“The clinical takeaway from our study is that statin use is associated with reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, but that it is not possible to determine the true effect of statins on breast cancer survival without a randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” Mr. Harborg told this publication. “Statins are inexpensive and well-tolerated drugs and may have a beneficial effect in terms of survival for breast cancer patients. However, with the current level of evidence [because the MASTER study is ongoing], we still cannot recommend that oncologists prescribe statins to prevent mortality from breast cancer,” he said.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The findings were limited by the study design, and real-world data are needed, Dr. Harborg said. Other limitations include the presence of residual bias, and the use of data based on prescription codes, but these were not considered to have an effect on the main conclusion of the study, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.

However, the results suggest that the addition of statins may improve outcomes for early breast cancer patients, especially when used with chemotherapy, and support the value of the ongoing MASTER study, he concluded.

Ultimately, the MASTER study will provide a more definitive answer to the question of whether statins should be added to the adjuvant treatment regimen of breast cancer to improve breast cancer outcomes, he said.
 

What Do Clinicians Think of the Study?

The current study is timely and highlights the need for phase 3 trials to examine the potential of statin use for breast cancer outcomes, Malinda T. West, MD, a medical oncologist and breast oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said in an interview.

Questions for future research include whether statins can be used in combination with adjuvant abemaciclib if indicated, or how to best sequence these agents, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study. Other questions raised by the current study include whether other cholesterol-lowering agents have a potential adjuvant benefit in reducing breast cancer recurrent and/or mortality, and whether the addition of statins would benefit subgroups such as HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer, she said.

“I was not surprised to see another study reporting benefit with statins and reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and/or mortality, but I think the larger question is defining the subgroups who benefit the most, and identifying predictors for benefit or resistance,” Dr. West said in an interview.

Previous studies have shown that cholesterol elevation, specifically LDL levels, can be linked to increased tumor growth in breast cancer, so the lower mortality risk associated with lipid-lowering therapies in the current study was consistent, Peyton L. Reves, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow, also at the University of Wisconsin, said in an interview. In practice, data from the current study and previous research could be especially useful for patients with elevated LDL levels, said Dr. Reves, who was not involved in the study.

“These results could impact clinical practice in many ways, including leading to routine cholesterol monitoring in breast cancer patients on adjuvant therapy as well as the addition of lipid-lowering therapy with statins in these patients,” Dr. Reves said.

The findings showing particular benefit for patients on adjuvant chemotherapy highlight the need for more research on this specific population and the effect of statins on overall breast cancer mortality, to explore the extent to which the results of the current study were driven by the benefit seen in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Reves said.

The study was supported by Director Michael Hermann Nielsen’s Memorial Grant, Manufacturer Einar Willumsen’s Memorial Grant, Astrid Thaysen’s Grant for Medical Basic Research, Eva and Henry Fraenkel’s Memorial Fund, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. West and Dr. Reves had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Meningitis has been highlighted as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia in a nationwide, propensity-matched study of hospital admissions.

In multivariate analysis, the odds of meningitis were threefold higher in patients admitted with trigeminal neuralgia than in matched controls without trigeminal neuralgia.

This is the first nationwide population-based study of the rare, chronic pain disorder to identify the prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the United States and risk factors contributing to trigeminal neuralgia development.

“Our results affirm known associations between trigeminal neuralgia and comorbidities like multiple sclerosis, and they also identify meningitis as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia,” said investigator Megan Tang, BS, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Strong Clinical Risk Factors

Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare pain disorder involving neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve. Its etiology and risk factors are poorly understood. Current literature is based on limited datasets and reports inconsistent risk factors across studies.

To better understand the disorder, researchers used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes to identify trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019, and then propensity matched them 1:1 to non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions based on demographics, socioeconomic status, and Charlson comorbidity index scores.

Univariate analysis identified 136,345 trigeminal neuralgia admissions or an overall prevalence of 0.096%.

Trigeminal neuralgia admissions had lower morbidity than non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions and a higher prevalence of non-White patients, private insurance, and prolonged length of stay, Ms. Tang said.

Patients admitted for trigeminal neuralgia also had a higher prevalence of several chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis; inflammatory conditions like lupus, meningitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease; and neurologic conditions including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke, and neurovascular compression disorders.

In multivariate analysis, investigators identified meningitis as a previously unknown risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; P < .001).

Other strong risk factors were neurovascular compression disorders (OR, 39.82; P < .001) and multiple sclerosis (OR, 12.41; P < .001). Non-White race (Black; OR, 1.09; Hispanic; OR, 1.23; Other; OR, 1.24) and use of Medicaid (OR, 1.07) and other insurance (OR, 1.17) were demographic risk factors for trigeminal neuralgia.

“This finding points us toward future work exploring the potential mechanisms of predictors, most notably inflammatory conditions in trigeminal neuralgia development,” Ms. Tang concluded.

She declined to comment further on the findings, noting the investigators are still finalizing the results and interpretation.
 

Ask About Meningitis, Fever

Commenting on the findings, Michael D. Staudt, MD, MSc, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said that many patients who present with classical trigeminal neuralgia will have a blood vessel on MRI that is pressing on the trigeminal nerve.

“Obviously, the nerve is bathed in cerebrospinal fluid. So, if there’s an inflammatory marker, inflammation, or infection that could be injuring the nerve in a way that we don’t yet understand, that could be something that could cause trigeminal neuralgia without having to see a blood vessel,” said Dr. Staudt, who was not involved in the study. “It makes sense, theoretically. Something that’s inflammatory, something that’s irritating, that’s novel.”

Currently, predictive markers include clinical history, response to classical medications such as carbamazepine, and MRI findings, Dr. Staudt noted.

“Someone shows up with symptoms and MRI, and it’s basically do they have a blood vessel or not,” he said. “Treatments are generally within the same categories, but we don’t think it’s the same sort of success rate as seeing a blood vessel.”

Further research is needed, but, in the meantime, Dr. Staudt said, “We can ask patients who show up with facial pain if they’ve ever had meningitis or some sort of fever that preceded their onset of pain.”

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Tang and coauthor Jack Y. Zhang, MS, reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Staudt reported serving as a consultant for Abbott and as a scientific adviser and consultant for Boston Scientific.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Meningitis has been highlighted as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia in a nationwide, propensity-matched study of hospital admissions.

In multivariate analysis, the odds of meningitis were threefold higher in patients admitted with trigeminal neuralgia than in matched controls without trigeminal neuralgia.

This is the first nationwide population-based study of the rare, chronic pain disorder to identify the prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the United States and risk factors contributing to trigeminal neuralgia development.

“Our results affirm known associations between trigeminal neuralgia and comorbidities like multiple sclerosis, and they also identify meningitis as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia,” said investigator Megan Tang, BS, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Strong Clinical Risk Factors

Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare pain disorder involving neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve. Its etiology and risk factors are poorly understood. Current literature is based on limited datasets and reports inconsistent risk factors across studies.

To better understand the disorder, researchers used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes to identify trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019, and then propensity matched them 1:1 to non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions based on demographics, socioeconomic status, and Charlson comorbidity index scores.

Univariate analysis identified 136,345 trigeminal neuralgia admissions or an overall prevalence of 0.096%.

Trigeminal neuralgia admissions had lower morbidity than non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions and a higher prevalence of non-White patients, private insurance, and prolonged length of stay, Ms. Tang said.

Patients admitted for trigeminal neuralgia also had a higher prevalence of several chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis; inflammatory conditions like lupus, meningitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease; and neurologic conditions including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke, and neurovascular compression disorders.

In multivariate analysis, investigators identified meningitis as a previously unknown risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; P < .001).

Other strong risk factors were neurovascular compression disorders (OR, 39.82; P < .001) and multiple sclerosis (OR, 12.41; P < .001). Non-White race (Black; OR, 1.09; Hispanic; OR, 1.23; Other; OR, 1.24) and use of Medicaid (OR, 1.07) and other insurance (OR, 1.17) were demographic risk factors for trigeminal neuralgia.

“This finding points us toward future work exploring the potential mechanisms of predictors, most notably inflammatory conditions in trigeminal neuralgia development,” Ms. Tang concluded.

She declined to comment further on the findings, noting the investigators are still finalizing the results and interpretation.
 

Ask About Meningitis, Fever

Commenting on the findings, Michael D. Staudt, MD, MSc, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said that many patients who present with classical trigeminal neuralgia will have a blood vessel on MRI that is pressing on the trigeminal nerve.

“Obviously, the nerve is bathed in cerebrospinal fluid. So, if there’s an inflammatory marker, inflammation, or infection that could be injuring the nerve in a way that we don’t yet understand, that could be something that could cause trigeminal neuralgia without having to see a blood vessel,” said Dr. Staudt, who was not involved in the study. “It makes sense, theoretically. Something that’s inflammatory, something that’s irritating, that’s novel.”

Currently, predictive markers include clinical history, response to classical medications such as carbamazepine, and MRI findings, Dr. Staudt noted.

“Someone shows up with symptoms and MRI, and it’s basically do they have a blood vessel or not,” he said. “Treatments are generally within the same categories, but we don’t think it’s the same sort of success rate as seeing a blood vessel.”

Further research is needed, but, in the meantime, Dr. Staudt said, “We can ask patients who show up with facial pain if they’ve ever had meningitis or some sort of fever that preceded their onset of pain.”

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Tang and coauthor Jack Y. Zhang, MS, reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Staudt reported serving as a consultant for Abbott and as a scientific adviser and consultant for Boston Scientific.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Meningitis has been highlighted as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia in a nationwide, propensity-matched study of hospital admissions.

In multivariate analysis, the odds of meningitis were threefold higher in patients admitted with trigeminal neuralgia than in matched controls without trigeminal neuralgia.

This is the first nationwide population-based study of the rare, chronic pain disorder to identify the prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the United States and risk factors contributing to trigeminal neuralgia development.

“Our results affirm known associations between trigeminal neuralgia and comorbidities like multiple sclerosis, and they also identify meningitis as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia,” said investigator Megan Tang, BS, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Strong Clinical Risk Factors

Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare pain disorder involving neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve. Its etiology and risk factors are poorly understood. Current literature is based on limited datasets and reports inconsistent risk factors across studies.

To better understand the disorder, researchers used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes to identify trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019, and then propensity matched them 1:1 to non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions based on demographics, socioeconomic status, and Charlson comorbidity index scores.

Univariate analysis identified 136,345 trigeminal neuralgia admissions or an overall prevalence of 0.096%.

Trigeminal neuralgia admissions had lower morbidity than non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions and a higher prevalence of non-White patients, private insurance, and prolonged length of stay, Ms. Tang said.

Patients admitted for trigeminal neuralgia also had a higher prevalence of several chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis; inflammatory conditions like lupus, meningitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease; and neurologic conditions including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke, and neurovascular compression disorders.

In multivariate analysis, investigators identified meningitis as a previously unknown risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; P < .001).

Other strong risk factors were neurovascular compression disorders (OR, 39.82; P < .001) and multiple sclerosis (OR, 12.41; P < .001). Non-White race (Black; OR, 1.09; Hispanic; OR, 1.23; Other; OR, 1.24) and use of Medicaid (OR, 1.07) and other insurance (OR, 1.17) were demographic risk factors for trigeminal neuralgia.

“This finding points us toward future work exploring the potential mechanisms of predictors, most notably inflammatory conditions in trigeminal neuralgia development,” Ms. Tang concluded.

She declined to comment further on the findings, noting the investigators are still finalizing the results and interpretation.
 

Ask About Meningitis, Fever

Commenting on the findings, Michael D. Staudt, MD, MSc, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said that many patients who present with classical trigeminal neuralgia will have a blood vessel on MRI that is pressing on the trigeminal nerve.

“Obviously, the nerve is bathed in cerebrospinal fluid. So, if there’s an inflammatory marker, inflammation, or infection that could be injuring the nerve in a way that we don’t yet understand, that could be something that could cause trigeminal neuralgia without having to see a blood vessel,” said Dr. Staudt, who was not involved in the study. “It makes sense, theoretically. Something that’s inflammatory, something that’s irritating, that’s novel.”

Currently, predictive markers include clinical history, response to classical medications such as carbamazepine, and MRI findings, Dr. Staudt noted.

“Someone shows up with symptoms and MRI, and it’s basically do they have a blood vessel or not,” he said. “Treatments are generally within the same categories, but we don’t think it’s the same sort of success rate as seeing a blood vessel.”

Further research is needed, but, in the meantime, Dr. Staudt said, “We can ask patients who show up with facial pain if they’ve ever had meningitis or some sort of fever that preceded their onset of pain.”

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Tang and coauthor Jack Y. Zhang, MS, reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Staudt reported serving as a consultant for Abbott and as a scientific adviser and consultant for Boston Scientific.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ColoSense (Geneoscopy, Inc), a multitarget stool RNA (mt-sRNA) test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in adults aged 45 years or older who are at average risk for CRC.

ColoSense, which had breakthrough device designation by the FDA, detects colorectal neoplasia–associated RNA markers and the presence of occult hemoglobin in human stool. 

A positive ColoSense test result may indicate the presence of CRC, advanced adenomas, or serrated precancerous lesions and should be followed by a colonoscopy, the company said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was based on results of the CRC-PREVENT trial, which evaluated the ColoSense mt-sRNA test in a diverse group of adults undergoing colonoscopy. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

Among all average-risk individuals, the sensitivity of the mt-sRNA test was 93% for CRC, 100% for early (stage I) CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas. In a subgroup of those aged 45-49 years, the sensitivity was 100% for CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas.

The trial results were presented last year at the American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting and simultaneously published in JAMA .

CRC is the second deadliest cancer in the United States, and adherence rates to recommended colonoscopies as a screening modality have remained consistently low at roughly 60%. 

Cases of CRC are also rising among people younger than age 50 years, leading the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend initiation of CRC screening at age 45 years.

“The growing number of adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer underscores the urgent need for innovative approaches in screening. It’s essential to eliminate obstacles and broaden the availability of screening methods for healthcare providers and patients,” Anjee Davis, president of Fight CRC, said in the news release. 

“We hope that introducing new FDA-approved diagnostic tools, including stool-based tests like ColoSense, will help to advance access and increase screening rates, ultimately reducing the impact of late-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses,” Ms. Davis said. 

The company plans to make ColoSense available in the United States later this year or early in 2025.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ColoSense (Geneoscopy, Inc), a multitarget stool RNA (mt-sRNA) test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in adults aged 45 years or older who are at average risk for CRC.

ColoSense, which had breakthrough device designation by the FDA, detects colorectal neoplasia–associated RNA markers and the presence of occult hemoglobin in human stool. 

A positive ColoSense test result may indicate the presence of CRC, advanced adenomas, or serrated precancerous lesions and should be followed by a colonoscopy, the company said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was based on results of the CRC-PREVENT trial, which evaluated the ColoSense mt-sRNA test in a diverse group of adults undergoing colonoscopy. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

Among all average-risk individuals, the sensitivity of the mt-sRNA test was 93% for CRC, 100% for early (stage I) CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas. In a subgroup of those aged 45-49 years, the sensitivity was 100% for CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas.

The trial results were presented last year at the American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting and simultaneously published in JAMA .

CRC is the second deadliest cancer in the United States, and adherence rates to recommended colonoscopies as a screening modality have remained consistently low at roughly 60%. 

Cases of CRC are also rising among people younger than age 50 years, leading the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend initiation of CRC screening at age 45 years.

“The growing number of adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer underscores the urgent need for innovative approaches in screening. It’s essential to eliminate obstacles and broaden the availability of screening methods for healthcare providers and patients,” Anjee Davis, president of Fight CRC, said in the news release. 

“We hope that introducing new FDA-approved diagnostic tools, including stool-based tests like ColoSense, will help to advance access and increase screening rates, ultimately reducing the impact of late-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses,” Ms. Davis said. 

The company plans to make ColoSense available in the United States later this year or early in 2025.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ColoSense (Geneoscopy, Inc), a multitarget stool RNA (mt-sRNA) test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in adults aged 45 years or older who are at average risk for CRC.

ColoSense, which had breakthrough device designation by the FDA, detects colorectal neoplasia–associated RNA markers and the presence of occult hemoglobin in human stool. 

A positive ColoSense test result may indicate the presence of CRC, advanced adenomas, or serrated precancerous lesions and should be followed by a colonoscopy, the company said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was based on results of the CRC-PREVENT trial, which evaluated the ColoSense mt-sRNA test in a diverse group of adults undergoing colonoscopy. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

Among all average-risk individuals, the sensitivity of the mt-sRNA test was 93% for CRC, 100% for early (stage I) CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas. In a subgroup of those aged 45-49 years, the sensitivity was 100% for CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas.

The trial results were presented last year at the American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting and simultaneously published in JAMA .

CRC is the second deadliest cancer in the United States, and adherence rates to recommended colonoscopies as a screening modality have remained consistently low at roughly 60%. 

Cases of CRC are also rising among people younger than age 50 years, leading the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend initiation of CRC screening at age 45 years.

“The growing number of adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer underscores the urgent need for innovative approaches in screening. It’s essential to eliminate obstacles and broaden the availability of screening methods for healthcare providers and patients,” Anjee Davis, president of Fight CRC, said in the news release. 

“We hope that introducing new FDA-approved diagnostic tools, including stool-based tests like ColoSense, will help to advance access and increase screening rates, ultimately reducing the impact of late-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses,” Ms. Davis said. 

The company plans to make ColoSense available in the United States later this year or early in 2025.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The topic of head and neck cancer is especially timely since the disease is evolving. A hematologist/oncologist with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) told colleagues that specialists are grappling with how to de-escalate treatment.

Molly Tokaz, MD, of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care and the University of Washington said tobacco is fading as a cause as fewer people smoke, and that human papillomavirus (HPV) is triggering more cases. HPV-positive patients have better prognoses, raising the prospect that their treatment could be adjusted.

“Instead of increasing the amount of therapy we're giving, we’re trying to peel it back,” she said. “If they’re going to respond no matter what we do, why are we going in with these huge weapons of mass destruction if we can get the same results with something more like a light infantry?”

Tokaz spoke about deescalating therapy at a May 2024 regional AVAHO meeting in Seattle that was focused on head and neck cancer. She elaborated on her presentation in an interview with Federal Practitioner. according to Tokaz, 90% of head and neck cancers are mucosal squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). HPV is associated specifically with nasopharyngeal cancer, which is distinct from SCC, and oropharyngeal cancer, which has been linked to better prognoses.

HPV-positive head and neck cancer is a unique entity with its own epidemiology, clinical prognosis, and treatment. “Patients tend to be younger without the same number of comorbid conditions,” Tokaz said. “Some of them are never smokers or light smokers. So, it's a different demographic than we’ve seen traditionally.”

The bad news is that HPV-associated head and neck cancer numbers are on the rise. Fortunately, outcomes tend to be better for the HPV-positive forms.

As for therapy for head and neck cancer, immunotherapy and targeted therapy play smaller roles than in some other cancers because the form tends to be diagnosed in early stages before metastases appear. Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation remain the major treatments. According to Tokaz’s presentation, surgery, or radiation—often with minimal adjuvant chemotherapy—can be appropriate for the earliest stage I and II cases of head and neck SCC. (She noted that HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma has its own staging system.)

Stage I and II cases make up 15% of new diagnoses and have a 5-year survival rate of > 70%. “In the earliest days, our main role was to make radiation work better and reduce it while adding a minimum amount of toxicity mutations,” she said. “Chemotherapy can help, but it’s only demonstrated improvement in overall survival in patients with positive surgical margins and extracapsular extension.”

In Stage III, IVA, and IVB cases, which make up 70% of new diagnoses, chemotherapy plus radiation is recommended. Five-year survival drops to 30% to 50%. Finally, 10% of new diagnoses are Stage IVC, which is incurable and median survival is < 1 year.

Since HPV-positive patients generally have better prognoses, oncologists are considering how to adjust their treatment. However, Tokaz notes that clinical trials have not shown a benefit from less intensive treatment in these patients. “At this point, we still treat them the same way as HPV-negative patients. But it's an ongoing area of research.”

Researchers are also exploring how to optimize regimens in patients ineligible for treatment with the chemotherapy agent cisplatin. “These folks have been traditionally excluded from clinical trials because they’re sicker,” Tokaz explained. “Researchers normally want the fittest and the best patients [in trials]. If you give a drug to someone with a lot of other comorbid conditions, they might not do as well with it, and it makes your drug look bad.”

Figuring out how to treat these patients is an especially urgent task in head and neck cancer because so many patients are frail and have comorbidities. More globally, Tokaz said the rise of HPV-related head and neck cancer highlights the importance of HPV vaccination, which is crucial for preventing cervical and anal cancer in addition to head and neck cancer. “HPV vaccination for children and young adults is crucial.”

Molly Tokaz, MD, reported no relevant financial relationships.

The topic of head and neck cancer is especially timely since the disease is evolving. A hematologist/oncologist with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) told colleagues that specialists are grappling with how to de-escalate treatment.

Molly Tokaz, MD, of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care and the University of Washington said tobacco is fading as a cause as fewer people smoke, and that human papillomavirus (HPV) is triggering more cases. HPV-positive patients have better prognoses, raising the prospect that their treatment could be adjusted.

“Instead of increasing the amount of therapy we're giving, we’re trying to peel it back,” she said. “If they’re going to respond no matter what we do, why are we going in with these huge weapons of mass destruction if we can get the same results with something more like a light infantry?”

Tokaz spoke about deescalating therapy at a May 2024 regional AVAHO meeting in Seattle that was focused on head and neck cancer. She elaborated on her presentation in an interview with Federal Practitioner. according to Tokaz, 90% of head and neck cancers are mucosal squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). HPV is associated specifically with nasopharyngeal cancer, which is distinct from SCC, and oropharyngeal cancer, which has been linked to better prognoses.

HPV-positive head and neck cancer is a unique entity with its own epidemiology, clinical prognosis, and treatment. “Patients tend to be younger without the same number of comorbid conditions,” Tokaz said. “Some of them are never smokers or light smokers. So, it's a different demographic than we’ve seen traditionally.”

The bad news is that HPV-associated head and neck cancer numbers are on the rise. Fortunately, outcomes tend to be better for the HPV-positive forms.

As for therapy for head and neck cancer, immunotherapy and targeted therapy play smaller roles than in some other cancers because the form tends to be diagnosed in early stages before metastases appear. Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation remain the major treatments. According to Tokaz’s presentation, surgery, or radiation—often with minimal adjuvant chemotherapy—can be appropriate for the earliest stage I and II cases of head and neck SCC. (She noted that HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma has its own staging system.)

Stage I and II cases make up 15% of new diagnoses and have a 5-year survival rate of > 70%. “In the earliest days, our main role was to make radiation work better and reduce it while adding a minimum amount of toxicity mutations,” she said. “Chemotherapy can help, but it’s only demonstrated improvement in overall survival in patients with positive surgical margins and extracapsular extension.”

In Stage III, IVA, and IVB cases, which make up 70% of new diagnoses, chemotherapy plus radiation is recommended. Five-year survival drops to 30% to 50%. Finally, 10% of new diagnoses are Stage IVC, which is incurable and median survival is < 1 year.

Since HPV-positive patients generally have better prognoses, oncologists are considering how to adjust their treatment. However, Tokaz notes that clinical trials have not shown a benefit from less intensive treatment in these patients. “At this point, we still treat them the same way as HPV-negative patients. But it's an ongoing area of research.”

Researchers are also exploring how to optimize regimens in patients ineligible for treatment with the chemotherapy agent cisplatin. “These folks have been traditionally excluded from clinical trials because they’re sicker,” Tokaz explained. “Researchers normally want the fittest and the best patients [in trials]. If you give a drug to someone with a lot of other comorbid conditions, they might not do as well with it, and it makes your drug look bad.”

Figuring out how to treat these patients is an especially urgent task in head and neck cancer because so many patients are frail and have comorbidities. More globally, Tokaz said the rise of HPV-related head and neck cancer highlights the importance of HPV vaccination, which is crucial for preventing cervical and anal cancer in addition to head and neck cancer. “HPV vaccination for children and young adults is crucial.”

Molly Tokaz, MD, reported no relevant financial relationships.

The topic of head and neck cancer is especially timely since the disease is evolving. A hematologist/oncologist with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) told colleagues that specialists are grappling with how to de-escalate treatment.

Molly Tokaz, MD, of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care and the University of Washington said tobacco is fading as a cause as fewer people smoke, and that human papillomavirus (HPV) is triggering more cases. HPV-positive patients have better prognoses, raising the prospect that their treatment could be adjusted.

“Instead of increasing the amount of therapy we're giving, we’re trying to peel it back,” she said. “If they’re going to respond no matter what we do, why are we going in with these huge weapons of mass destruction if we can get the same results with something more like a light infantry?”

Tokaz spoke about deescalating therapy at a May 2024 regional AVAHO meeting in Seattle that was focused on head and neck cancer. She elaborated on her presentation in an interview with Federal Practitioner. according to Tokaz, 90% of head and neck cancers are mucosal squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). HPV is associated specifically with nasopharyngeal cancer, which is distinct from SCC, and oropharyngeal cancer, which has been linked to better prognoses.

HPV-positive head and neck cancer is a unique entity with its own epidemiology, clinical prognosis, and treatment. “Patients tend to be younger without the same number of comorbid conditions,” Tokaz said. “Some of them are never smokers or light smokers. So, it's a different demographic than we’ve seen traditionally.”

The bad news is that HPV-associated head and neck cancer numbers are on the rise. Fortunately, outcomes tend to be better for the HPV-positive forms.

As for therapy for head and neck cancer, immunotherapy and targeted therapy play smaller roles than in some other cancers because the form tends to be diagnosed in early stages before metastases appear. Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation remain the major treatments. According to Tokaz’s presentation, surgery, or radiation—often with minimal adjuvant chemotherapy—can be appropriate for the earliest stage I and II cases of head and neck SCC. (She noted that HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma has its own staging system.)

Stage I and II cases make up 15% of new diagnoses and have a 5-year survival rate of > 70%. “In the earliest days, our main role was to make radiation work better and reduce it while adding a minimum amount of toxicity mutations,” she said. “Chemotherapy can help, but it’s only demonstrated improvement in overall survival in patients with positive surgical margins and extracapsular extension.”

In Stage III, IVA, and IVB cases, which make up 70% of new diagnoses, chemotherapy plus radiation is recommended. Five-year survival drops to 30% to 50%. Finally, 10% of new diagnoses are Stage IVC, which is incurable and median survival is < 1 year.

Since HPV-positive patients generally have better prognoses, oncologists are considering how to adjust their treatment. However, Tokaz notes that clinical trials have not shown a benefit from less intensive treatment in these patients. “At this point, we still treat them the same way as HPV-negative patients. But it's an ongoing area of research.”

Researchers are also exploring how to optimize regimens in patients ineligible for treatment with the chemotherapy agent cisplatin. “These folks have been traditionally excluded from clinical trials because they’re sicker,” Tokaz explained. “Researchers normally want the fittest and the best patients [in trials]. If you give a drug to someone with a lot of other comorbid conditions, they might not do as well with it, and it makes your drug look bad.”

Figuring out how to treat these patients is an especially urgent task in head and neck cancer because so many patients are frail and have comorbidities. More globally, Tokaz said the rise of HPV-related head and neck cancer highlights the importance of HPV vaccination, which is crucial for preventing cervical and anal cancer in addition to head and neck cancer. “HPV vaccination for children and young adults is crucial.”

Molly Tokaz, MD, reported no relevant financial relationships.

Not surprisingly, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other mental health issues became more prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic—and after. Studies have found that neurologic and psychiatric sequelae may last up to 6 months following COVID-19 infection.

It appears that COVID-19 infection—even past the acute stage—could put hospitalized patients at risk of exacerbating existing mental health conditions or even developing new conditions. Researchers from Salem Veterans Affairs Health Care System conducted a retrospective observational study from January 1, 2020, through January 1, 2022, of 50,805 veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 and 50,805 patients hospitalized for other reasons.

The researchers found that veterans with COVID-19 group had significantly higher rates of psychiatry-related hospitalization at both 90 and 180 days, as well as a significant increase in the incidence of outpatient mental health visits at 180 days. They also noted a significantly higher risk of new-onset depression and new-onset dementia in the COVID-19 patients at 180 days compared with the non-COVID-19 cohort.

The exact mechanism of the impact of COVID-19 hospitalization on new or worsening depression has yet to be uncovered, the researchers say, but it is known to be complex and interrelated. They point to post-COVID-19 follow-up studies that have found that even mild and asymptomatic infection may lead to cognitive impairment, delirium, extreme fatigue, and clinically relevant mood symptoms. The residual effects of COVID-19 appear to span multiple organ systems.

The researchers also cite current hypotheses about the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 that suggest sustained neuroinflammatory processes disrupt the blood-brain barrier, leading to damaged neurons and glia in the brain. In a systematic review, roughly one-third of patients developed neurologic symptoms in the acute phase of the disease, with brain abnormalities “suggestive of COVID-19 etiology.” What’s more, multiple studies have found that anxiety and depression worsen the clinical course of chronic disease, indicating that this mechanism is bidirectional.

Future studies should, among other things include outcomes assessed by COVID-19 disease severity, as well as various psychiatric adverse effects, to enhance provider vigilance and promote closer monitoring.

Not surprisingly, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other mental health issues became more prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic—and after. Studies have found that neurologic and psychiatric sequelae may last up to 6 months following COVID-19 infection.

It appears that COVID-19 infection—even past the acute stage—could put hospitalized patients at risk of exacerbating existing mental health conditions or even developing new conditions. Researchers from Salem Veterans Affairs Health Care System conducted a retrospective observational study from January 1, 2020, through January 1, 2022, of 50,805 veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 and 50,805 patients hospitalized for other reasons.

The researchers found that veterans with COVID-19 group had significantly higher rates of psychiatry-related hospitalization at both 90 and 180 days, as well as a significant increase in the incidence of outpatient mental health visits at 180 days. They also noted a significantly higher risk of new-onset depression and new-onset dementia in the COVID-19 patients at 180 days compared with the non-COVID-19 cohort.

The exact mechanism of the impact of COVID-19 hospitalization on new or worsening depression has yet to be uncovered, the researchers say, but it is known to be complex and interrelated. They point to post-COVID-19 follow-up studies that have found that even mild and asymptomatic infection may lead to cognitive impairment, delirium, extreme fatigue, and clinically relevant mood symptoms. The residual effects of COVID-19 appear to span multiple organ systems.

The researchers also cite current hypotheses about the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 that suggest sustained neuroinflammatory processes disrupt the blood-brain barrier, leading to damaged neurons and glia in the brain. In a systematic review, roughly one-third of patients developed neurologic symptoms in the acute phase of the disease, with brain abnormalities “suggestive of COVID-19 etiology.” What’s more, multiple studies have found that anxiety and depression worsen the clinical course of chronic disease, indicating that this mechanism is bidirectional.

Future studies should, among other things include outcomes assessed by COVID-19 disease severity, as well as various psychiatric adverse effects, to enhance provider vigilance and promote closer monitoring.

Not surprisingly, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other mental health issues became more prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic—and after. Studies have found that neurologic and psychiatric sequelae may last up to 6 months following COVID-19 infection.

It appears that COVID-19 infection—even past the acute stage—could put hospitalized patients at risk of exacerbating existing mental health conditions or even developing new conditions. Researchers from Salem Veterans Affairs Health Care System conducted a retrospective observational study from January 1, 2020, through January 1, 2022, of 50,805 veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 and 50,805 patients hospitalized for other reasons.

The researchers found that veterans with COVID-19 group had significantly higher rates of psychiatry-related hospitalization at both 90 and 180 days, as well as a significant increase in the incidence of outpatient mental health visits at 180 days. They also noted a significantly higher risk of new-onset depression and new-onset dementia in the COVID-19 patients at 180 days compared with the non-COVID-19 cohort.

The exact mechanism of the impact of COVID-19 hospitalization on new or worsening depression has yet to be uncovered, the researchers say, but it is known to be complex and interrelated. They point to post-COVID-19 follow-up studies that have found that even mild and asymptomatic infection may lead to cognitive impairment, delirium, extreme fatigue, and clinically relevant mood symptoms. The residual effects of COVID-19 appear to span multiple organ systems.

The researchers also cite current hypotheses about the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 that suggest sustained neuroinflammatory processes disrupt the blood-brain barrier, leading to damaged neurons and glia in the brain. In a systematic review, roughly one-third of patients developed neurologic symptoms in the acute phase of the disease, with brain abnormalities “suggestive of COVID-19 etiology.” What’s more, multiple studies have found that anxiety and depression worsen the clinical course of chronic disease, indicating that this mechanism is bidirectional.

Future studies should, among other things include outcomes assessed by COVID-19 disease severity, as well as various psychiatric adverse effects, to enhance provider vigilance and promote closer monitoring.

WASHINGTON, DC – A mouth rinse used to identify oral microbiome composition could serve as an early-detection tool for gastric cancer, new evidence suggests.

Researchers found distinct bacterial composition differences in patient samples that point to the potential for oral microbial signatures to be used as biomarkers for assessing gastric cancer risk. 

“Too many patients are being diagnosed too late. There are no formal screening guidelines for gastric cancer, and more than half of patients with gastric cancer do not receive a diagnosis until their cancer is already at an advanced stage,” said Shruthi Reddy Perati, MD, a general surgery resident at Rutgers University Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Detecting gastric cancer now generally requires an invasive procedure, such as endoscopy. Therefore, a noninvasive “swish and spit” test could be more accessible and allow for more widespread screening, Dr. Perati said at a May 8 press briefing during which her research (Abstract 949) was previewed for Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

Gastric cancer, also known as stomach cancer, is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death in the world. The United States can expect 26,890 new cases and 10,880 deaths from this type of cancer in 2024, the American Cancer Society estimates.
 

Microbial Signatures Found

Dr. Perati and colleagues collected oral rinse samples from 98 patients: 30 known to have gastric cancer , 30 with precancerous gastric conditions (pre–gastric cancer), and 38 control participants without pre-gastric or gastric cancer. Sixty-two percent were women, 32% were Hispanic, 31% had diabetes, and 18% were smokers.

The researchers analyzed the samples for alpha and beta diversity and conducted differential analysis using the framework called analysis of compositions of microbiomes.

They found distinct differences between the oral microbiomes of the healthy group and those of the groups with gastric cancer and pre–gastric cancer. In addition, the microbiomes of participants with cancer and of those with precancerous conditions were similar.

The results suggest that the microbiome changes may occur as soon as the stomach environment starts to undergo changes that can eventually turn into cancer.

“The oral microbiome may serve as a window into the composition of the stomach environment,” Dr. Perati said.

The investigators created a screening model to detect the most relevant 13 bacterial genera that differed between the control group and the gastric cancer and pre–gastric cancer groups. The tenfold cross-validation model demonstrated good ability to discriminate using bacteria alone (area under the curve [AUC], 0.74) and was further improved with the addition of clinical variables, including demographics and comorbidities (AUC, 0.91), the researchers noted.

As the investigators noted, the model’s performance improved with the addition of clinical variables, said Loren Laine, MD, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine and chair of DDW 2024.

An AUC of 0.74 using bacteria alone, which increased to 0.91 by adding demographics and comorbidities, “[is] starting to be really meaningful,” Dr. Laine said.

Further studies should evaluate the test’s sensitivity and specificity, Dr. Laine added.
 

Additional Considerations

The microbiome can vary between people and within the same individual over time. Probiotics, antibiotics, and diet can lead to changes in the microbiome, Dr. Perati said.

When asked how these changes could affect the accuracy of an oral rinse test, Dr. Perati said “it’s known that, in general, dietary modifications can have an impact on the diversity and the prevalence of certain bacteria throughout the GI tract.”

Though variance is expected, we’re hoping to see that the differences in the microbiome composition between the malignant groups and the control groups are more significant than those lower-level background changes due to dietary modifications, for example, she added.

The research is in its early days, and the results need to be validated in a larger study, Dr. Perati said.

Ninety-eight patients is “still a very small number,” said Dr. Laine, who co-moderated the press briefing. “More research is needed.”

Still, the study “has huge implications that could eventually lead to the development of noninvasive and accessible early screening for gastric cancer,” she said.

Dr. Perati and Dr. Laine reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently supported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON, DC – A mouth rinse used to identify oral microbiome composition could serve as an early-detection tool for gastric cancer, new evidence suggests.

Researchers found distinct bacterial composition differences in patient samples that point to the potential for oral microbial signatures to be used as biomarkers for assessing gastric cancer risk. 

“Too many patients are being diagnosed too late. There are no formal screening guidelines for gastric cancer, and more than half of patients with gastric cancer do not receive a diagnosis until their cancer is already at an advanced stage,” said Shruthi Reddy Perati, MD, a general surgery resident at Rutgers University Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Detecting gastric cancer now generally requires an invasive procedure, such as endoscopy. Therefore, a noninvasive “swish and spit” test could be more accessible and allow for more widespread screening, Dr. Perati said at a May 8 press briefing during which her research (Abstract 949) was previewed for Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

Gastric cancer, also known as stomach cancer, is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death in the world. The United States can expect 26,890 new cases and 10,880 deaths from this type of cancer in 2024, the American Cancer Society estimates.
 

Microbial Signatures Found

Dr. Perati and colleagues collected oral rinse samples from 98 patients: 30 known to have gastric cancer , 30 with precancerous gastric conditions (pre–gastric cancer), and 38 control participants without pre-gastric or gastric cancer. Sixty-two percent were women, 32% were Hispanic, 31% had diabetes, and 18% were smokers.

The researchers analyzed the samples for alpha and beta diversity and conducted differential analysis using the framework called analysis of compositions of microbiomes.

They found distinct differences between the oral microbiomes of the healthy group and those of the groups with gastric cancer and pre–gastric cancer. In addition, the microbiomes of participants with cancer and of those with precancerous conditions were similar.

The results suggest that the microbiome changes may occur as soon as the stomach environment starts to undergo changes that can eventually turn into cancer.

“The oral microbiome may serve as a window into the composition of the stomach environment,” Dr. Perati said.

The investigators created a screening model to detect the most relevant 13 bacterial genera that differed between the control group and the gastric cancer and pre–gastric cancer groups. The tenfold cross-validation model demonstrated good ability to discriminate using bacteria alone (area under the curve [AUC], 0.74) and was further improved with the addition of clinical variables, including demographics and comorbidities (AUC, 0.91), the researchers noted.

As the investigators noted, the model’s performance improved with the addition of clinical variables, said Loren Laine, MD, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine and chair of DDW 2024.

An AUC of 0.74 using bacteria alone, which increased to 0.91 by adding demographics and comorbidities, “[is] starting to be really meaningful,” Dr. Laine said.

Further studies should evaluate the test’s sensitivity and specificity, Dr. Laine added.
 

Additional Considerations

The microbiome can vary between people and within the same individual over time. Probiotics, antibiotics, and diet can lead to changes in the microbiome, Dr. Perati said.

When asked how these changes could affect the accuracy of an oral rinse test, Dr. Perati said “it’s known that, in general, dietary modifications can have an impact on the diversity and the prevalence of certain bacteria throughout the GI tract.”

Though variance is expected, we’re hoping to see that the differences in the microbiome composition between the malignant groups and the control groups are more significant than those lower-level background changes due to dietary modifications, for example, she added.

The research is in its early days, and the results need to be validated in a larger study, Dr. Perati said.

Ninety-eight patients is “still a very small number,” said Dr. Laine, who co-moderated the press briefing. “More research is needed.”

Still, the study “has huge implications that could eventually lead to the development of noninvasive and accessible early screening for gastric cancer,” she said.

Dr. Perati and Dr. Laine reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently supported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON, DC – A mouth rinse used to identify oral microbiome composition could serve as an early-detection tool for gastric cancer, new evidence suggests.

Researchers found distinct bacterial composition differences in patient samples that point to the potential for oral microbial signatures to be used as biomarkers for assessing gastric cancer risk. 

“Too many patients are being diagnosed too late. There are no formal screening guidelines for gastric cancer, and more than half of patients with gastric cancer do not receive a diagnosis until their cancer is already at an advanced stage,” said Shruthi Reddy Perati, MD, a general surgery resident at Rutgers University Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Detecting gastric cancer now generally requires an invasive procedure, such as endoscopy. Therefore, a noninvasive “swish and spit” test could be more accessible and allow for more widespread screening, Dr. Perati said at a May 8 press briefing during which her research (Abstract 949) was previewed for Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

Gastric cancer, also known as stomach cancer, is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death in the world. The United States can expect 26,890 new cases and 10,880 deaths from this type of cancer in 2024, the American Cancer Society estimates.
 

Microbial Signatures Found

Dr. Perati and colleagues collected oral rinse samples from 98 patients: 30 known to have gastric cancer , 30 with precancerous gastric conditions (pre–gastric cancer), and 38 control participants without pre-gastric or gastric cancer. Sixty-two percent were women, 32% were Hispanic, 31% had diabetes, and 18% were smokers.

The researchers analyzed the samples for alpha and beta diversity and conducted differential analysis using the framework called analysis of compositions of microbiomes.

They found distinct differences between the oral microbiomes of the healthy group and those of the groups with gastric cancer and pre–gastric cancer. In addition, the microbiomes of participants with cancer and of those with precancerous conditions were similar.

The results suggest that the microbiome changes may occur as soon as the stomach environment starts to undergo changes that can eventually turn into cancer.

“The oral microbiome may serve as a window into the composition of the stomach environment,” Dr. Perati said.

The investigators created a screening model to detect the most relevant 13 bacterial genera that differed between the control group and the gastric cancer and pre–gastric cancer groups. The tenfold cross-validation model demonstrated good ability to discriminate using bacteria alone (area under the curve [AUC], 0.74) and was further improved with the addition of clinical variables, including demographics and comorbidities (AUC, 0.91), the researchers noted.

As the investigators noted, the model’s performance improved with the addition of clinical variables, said Loren Laine, MD, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine and chair of DDW 2024.

An AUC of 0.74 using bacteria alone, which increased to 0.91 by adding demographics and comorbidities, “[is] starting to be really meaningful,” Dr. Laine said.

Further studies should evaluate the test’s sensitivity and specificity, Dr. Laine added.
 

Additional Considerations

The microbiome can vary between people and within the same individual over time. Probiotics, antibiotics, and diet can lead to changes in the microbiome, Dr. Perati said.

When asked how these changes could affect the accuracy of an oral rinse test, Dr. Perati said “it’s known that, in general, dietary modifications can have an impact on the diversity and the prevalence of certain bacteria throughout the GI tract.”

Though variance is expected, we’re hoping to see that the differences in the microbiome composition between the malignant groups and the control groups are more significant than those lower-level background changes due to dietary modifications, for example, she added.

The research is in its early days, and the results need to be validated in a larger study, Dr. Perati said.

Ninety-eight patients is “still a very small number,” said Dr. Laine, who co-moderated the press briefing. “More research is needed.”

Still, the study “has huge implications that could eventually lead to the development of noninvasive and accessible early screening for gastric cancer,” she said.

Dr. Perati and Dr. Laine reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently supported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.