User login
Oncology Practice and Lab to Pay $4 Million in Kickback Case
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Virtual Reality Brings Relief to Hospitalized Patients With Cancer
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM CANCER
Prostate Cancer Tsunami Coming, Experts Caution
An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.
At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.
Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.
Dr. James told this news organization.
“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”
According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”
Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.
“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”
Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.
Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.
Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.
Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.
In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London.
“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.
He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.
“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.
In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”
Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.
At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.
Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.
Dr. James told this news organization.
“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”
According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”
Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.
“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”
Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.
Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.
Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.
Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.
In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London.
“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.
He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.
“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.
In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”
Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.
At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.
Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.
Dr. James told this news organization.
“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”
According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”
Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.
“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”
Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.
Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.
Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.
Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.
In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London.
“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.
He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.
“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.
In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”
Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Study Shows Nirmatrelvir–Ritonavir No More Effective Than Placebo for COVID-19 Symptom Relief
Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found.
The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers.
“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”
The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).
However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.
Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said.
She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.
More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%).
In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7).
The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote.
Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.
Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease.
“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”
The study was supported by Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found.
The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers.
“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”
The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).
However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.
Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said.
She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.
More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%).
In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7).
The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote.
Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.
Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease.
“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”
The study was supported by Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found.
The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers.
“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”
The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).
However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.
Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said.
She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.
More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%).
In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7).
The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote.
Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.
Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease.
“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”
The study was supported by Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Should Opioids Be Used for Chronic Cancer Pain?
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
FROM CANCER
Certain Pesticides Linked With Risk for Pancreatic Cancer
One of them, a case-control study, showed an elevated risk in individuals whose adipose tissue contained substances that are now banned.
“The association between pesticides and pancreatic cancer exists. It is of low magnitude but robust, concerning cumulative pesticides and three substances: Mancozeb, glyphosate, and sulfur in spray form,” said Mathias Brugel, MD, hospital practitioner at Basque Coast Hospital Center in Bayonne, France, during his presentation.
Regarding the four other liposoluble substances associated with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer in the second study, “their use has been banned since the 1990s, but they are still present in soils and in the air,” Dr. Brugel told this news organization.
For example, in Reims, France, the assessment of air quality by ATMO Grand Est revealed the presence of banned pesticides in the air, he added. However, Dr. Brugel stressed that a cause-effect relationship between pesticide exposure and the risk for pancreatic cancer cannot be established with these studies.
Incidence Rising Constantly
The incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been increasing steadily for more than 30 years. In France, nearly 16,000 new cases were reported in 2023, which represented an annual increase of about 2%. According to the National Cancer Institute, “pancreatic adenocarcinoma could become the second leading cause of cancer mortality by 2030.”
“This increase in incidence is particularly strong in France compared with other Western countries. The causes are still poorly understood. One might wonder whether environmental factors like pesticides are involved,” said Dr. Brugel.
Known to have a mechanism of action favoring oncogenesis, pesticides are suspected of being responsible for the rise in certain cancers, especially given their extensive use in France. In total, around 300 substances are authorized, and 65,000 tons are applied each year, making France the largest consumer of pesticides in Europe.
“Contamination is ubiquitous, meaning they are found in soil, water, air, and in individuals,” said Dr. Brugel. According to a study by the Institute for Scientific Expertise Research, pesticide residues were detected in 64% of hair samples taken from French volunteers.
The literature increasingly reported data suggesting a link between pesticide exposure and the development of certain diseases like cancer. A 2021 document by Inserm notably confirmed the strong presumption of a link between occupational pesticide exposure and pathologies such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer.
High-Incidence Zones
To explore the link between pesticide exposure and pancreatic cancer, Dr. Brugel and his colleagues conducted the EcoPESTIPAC and PESTIPAC studies, the results of which were presented at this year’s conference.
In EcoPESTIPAC, researchers conducted a national ecological regression by dividing the entire French territory into 5529 spatial units. The number of pancreatic cancer cases per spatial unit per year (disease-mapping) was determined using the National Health Data System.
Nine chemicals, including glyphosate, were included, thus covering half of pesticide purchases in France. The cumulative quantity of pesticides, regardless of molecule, was also examined. Pesticide exposure was estimated by the median ratio between pesticide purchase and agricultural area per spatial unit over an 11-year period from early 2011 to the end of 2021.
Mor than 134,000 cases of pancreatic cancer were reported during this period. The analysis revealed three high-incidence zones located around Paris, in central France, and in the Mediterranean basin, while spatial units in the western region showed the lowest incidences.
The heterogeneous distribution of the disease suggests the involvement of risk factors, said Dr. Brugel. After adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking, the study showed an increased risk for pancreatic cancer associated with the cumulative quantity of pesticides and three specific substances: Sulfur in spray form, mancozeb, and glyphosate.
Risk Increases
A dose-response relationship was evident. For an increase in pesticide use of 2.5 kg/hectare over 11 years, the risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma increased from 0.9% to 1.4%. “The increase is relatively small, but one must not forget that this risk applies to all of France,” said Dr. Brugel. Indeed, the risk appeared homogeneous across the entire territory.
This was the first study to explore this link at the national level. Although the association between the four identified factors and pancreatic risk was robust, the study had some limitations. It relied on the quantities of pesticides purchased to estimate the quantities used, Dr. Brugel pointed out.
The second study, PESTIPAC, was a case-control study conducted at the Reims University Hospital to explore the association between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in fat and urine.
The study included 26 patients with pancreatic cancer who had abdominal surgery that allowed for adipose tissue sampling (minimum 10 g). Urine was collected in the morning on an empty stomach.
A control group was formed by including 26 other patients who underwent surgery for a benign abdominal condition such as gallstones or hernia, thus allowing for the same sampling. Individuals in both groups were matched for age and body mass index, two risk factors for pancreatic cancer.
Banned Substances
In total, 345 substances were searched for using chromatography and mass spectrometry. Analyses revealed the presence of five banned substances in all patients, while nine substances were found in half of the samples.
“Contamination is very widespread, both in patients with pancreatic cancer and in the controls,” said Dr. Brugel. Consequently, for this study, between-group comparisons of substances present in all individuals could not be performed.
After adjustment, an association with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer was nonetheless observed with four liposoluble substances: 4,4-DDE, mirex or perchlordecone, trans-nonachlor, and cis-nonachlor. All four substances are herbicides that have been banned for at least 30 years.
The study also aimed to assess the effect of pesticide presence in the body on survival after pancreatic cancer. The results showed no significant difference for overall survival or progression-free survival.
“Pesticides are a credible candidate to explain the increase in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” said Dr. Brugel. However, “if associations between pancreatic cancer and pesticides exist, they remain poorly understood, and it is difficult to establish clear causality.”
Further large-scale studies will be needed to confirm these associations. An evaluation of the general population’s exposure to banned substances also appears justified, according to the researchers.
This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One of them, a case-control study, showed an elevated risk in individuals whose adipose tissue contained substances that are now banned.
“The association between pesticides and pancreatic cancer exists. It is of low magnitude but robust, concerning cumulative pesticides and three substances: Mancozeb, glyphosate, and sulfur in spray form,” said Mathias Brugel, MD, hospital practitioner at Basque Coast Hospital Center in Bayonne, France, during his presentation.
Regarding the four other liposoluble substances associated with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer in the second study, “their use has been banned since the 1990s, but they are still present in soils and in the air,” Dr. Brugel told this news organization.
For example, in Reims, France, the assessment of air quality by ATMO Grand Est revealed the presence of banned pesticides in the air, he added. However, Dr. Brugel stressed that a cause-effect relationship between pesticide exposure and the risk for pancreatic cancer cannot be established with these studies.
Incidence Rising Constantly
The incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been increasing steadily for more than 30 years. In France, nearly 16,000 new cases were reported in 2023, which represented an annual increase of about 2%. According to the National Cancer Institute, “pancreatic adenocarcinoma could become the second leading cause of cancer mortality by 2030.”
“This increase in incidence is particularly strong in France compared with other Western countries. The causes are still poorly understood. One might wonder whether environmental factors like pesticides are involved,” said Dr. Brugel.
Known to have a mechanism of action favoring oncogenesis, pesticides are suspected of being responsible for the rise in certain cancers, especially given their extensive use in France. In total, around 300 substances are authorized, and 65,000 tons are applied each year, making France the largest consumer of pesticides in Europe.
“Contamination is ubiquitous, meaning they are found in soil, water, air, and in individuals,” said Dr. Brugel. According to a study by the Institute for Scientific Expertise Research, pesticide residues were detected in 64% of hair samples taken from French volunteers.
The literature increasingly reported data suggesting a link between pesticide exposure and the development of certain diseases like cancer. A 2021 document by Inserm notably confirmed the strong presumption of a link between occupational pesticide exposure and pathologies such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer.
High-Incidence Zones
To explore the link between pesticide exposure and pancreatic cancer, Dr. Brugel and his colleagues conducted the EcoPESTIPAC and PESTIPAC studies, the results of which were presented at this year’s conference.
In EcoPESTIPAC, researchers conducted a national ecological regression by dividing the entire French territory into 5529 spatial units. The number of pancreatic cancer cases per spatial unit per year (disease-mapping) was determined using the National Health Data System.
Nine chemicals, including glyphosate, were included, thus covering half of pesticide purchases in France. The cumulative quantity of pesticides, regardless of molecule, was also examined. Pesticide exposure was estimated by the median ratio between pesticide purchase and agricultural area per spatial unit over an 11-year period from early 2011 to the end of 2021.
Mor than 134,000 cases of pancreatic cancer were reported during this period. The analysis revealed three high-incidence zones located around Paris, in central France, and in the Mediterranean basin, while spatial units in the western region showed the lowest incidences.
The heterogeneous distribution of the disease suggests the involvement of risk factors, said Dr. Brugel. After adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking, the study showed an increased risk for pancreatic cancer associated with the cumulative quantity of pesticides and three specific substances: Sulfur in spray form, mancozeb, and glyphosate.
Risk Increases
A dose-response relationship was evident. For an increase in pesticide use of 2.5 kg/hectare over 11 years, the risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma increased from 0.9% to 1.4%. “The increase is relatively small, but one must not forget that this risk applies to all of France,” said Dr. Brugel. Indeed, the risk appeared homogeneous across the entire territory.
This was the first study to explore this link at the national level. Although the association between the four identified factors and pancreatic risk was robust, the study had some limitations. It relied on the quantities of pesticides purchased to estimate the quantities used, Dr. Brugel pointed out.
The second study, PESTIPAC, was a case-control study conducted at the Reims University Hospital to explore the association between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in fat and urine.
The study included 26 patients with pancreatic cancer who had abdominal surgery that allowed for adipose tissue sampling (minimum 10 g). Urine was collected in the morning on an empty stomach.
A control group was formed by including 26 other patients who underwent surgery for a benign abdominal condition such as gallstones or hernia, thus allowing for the same sampling. Individuals in both groups were matched for age and body mass index, two risk factors for pancreatic cancer.
Banned Substances
In total, 345 substances were searched for using chromatography and mass spectrometry. Analyses revealed the presence of five banned substances in all patients, while nine substances were found in half of the samples.
“Contamination is very widespread, both in patients with pancreatic cancer and in the controls,” said Dr. Brugel. Consequently, for this study, between-group comparisons of substances present in all individuals could not be performed.
After adjustment, an association with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer was nonetheless observed with four liposoluble substances: 4,4-DDE, mirex or perchlordecone, trans-nonachlor, and cis-nonachlor. All four substances are herbicides that have been banned for at least 30 years.
The study also aimed to assess the effect of pesticide presence in the body on survival after pancreatic cancer. The results showed no significant difference for overall survival or progression-free survival.
“Pesticides are a credible candidate to explain the increase in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” said Dr. Brugel. However, “if associations between pancreatic cancer and pesticides exist, they remain poorly understood, and it is difficult to establish clear causality.”
Further large-scale studies will be needed to confirm these associations. An evaluation of the general population’s exposure to banned substances also appears justified, according to the researchers.
This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One of them, a case-control study, showed an elevated risk in individuals whose adipose tissue contained substances that are now banned.
“The association between pesticides and pancreatic cancer exists. It is of low magnitude but robust, concerning cumulative pesticides and three substances: Mancozeb, glyphosate, and sulfur in spray form,” said Mathias Brugel, MD, hospital practitioner at Basque Coast Hospital Center in Bayonne, France, during his presentation.
Regarding the four other liposoluble substances associated with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer in the second study, “their use has been banned since the 1990s, but they are still present in soils and in the air,” Dr. Brugel told this news organization.
For example, in Reims, France, the assessment of air quality by ATMO Grand Est revealed the presence of banned pesticides in the air, he added. However, Dr. Brugel stressed that a cause-effect relationship between pesticide exposure and the risk for pancreatic cancer cannot be established with these studies.
Incidence Rising Constantly
The incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been increasing steadily for more than 30 years. In France, nearly 16,000 new cases were reported in 2023, which represented an annual increase of about 2%. According to the National Cancer Institute, “pancreatic adenocarcinoma could become the second leading cause of cancer mortality by 2030.”
“This increase in incidence is particularly strong in France compared with other Western countries. The causes are still poorly understood. One might wonder whether environmental factors like pesticides are involved,” said Dr. Brugel.
Known to have a mechanism of action favoring oncogenesis, pesticides are suspected of being responsible for the rise in certain cancers, especially given their extensive use in France. In total, around 300 substances are authorized, and 65,000 tons are applied each year, making France the largest consumer of pesticides in Europe.
“Contamination is ubiquitous, meaning they are found in soil, water, air, and in individuals,” said Dr. Brugel. According to a study by the Institute for Scientific Expertise Research, pesticide residues were detected in 64% of hair samples taken from French volunteers.
The literature increasingly reported data suggesting a link between pesticide exposure and the development of certain diseases like cancer. A 2021 document by Inserm notably confirmed the strong presumption of a link between occupational pesticide exposure and pathologies such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer.
High-Incidence Zones
To explore the link between pesticide exposure and pancreatic cancer, Dr. Brugel and his colleagues conducted the EcoPESTIPAC and PESTIPAC studies, the results of which were presented at this year’s conference.
In EcoPESTIPAC, researchers conducted a national ecological regression by dividing the entire French territory into 5529 spatial units. The number of pancreatic cancer cases per spatial unit per year (disease-mapping) was determined using the National Health Data System.
Nine chemicals, including glyphosate, were included, thus covering half of pesticide purchases in France. The cumulative quantity of pesticides, regardless of molecule, was also examined. Pesticide exposure was estimated by the median ratio between pesticide purchase and agricultural area per spatial unit over an 11-year period from early 2011 to the end of 2021.
Mor than 134,000 cases of pancreatic cancer were reported during this period. The analysis revealed three high-incidence zones located around Paris, in central France, and in the Mediterranean basin, while spatial units in the western region showed the lowest incidences.
The heterogeneous distribution of the disease suggests the involvement of risk factors, said Dr. Brugel. After adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking, the study showed an increased risk for pancreatic cancer associated with the cumulative quantity of pesticides and three specific substances: Sulfur in spray form, mancozeb, and glyphosate.
Risk Increases
A dose-response relationship was evident. For an increase in pesticide use of 2.5 kg/hectare over 11 years, the risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma increased from 0.9% to 1.4%. “The increase is relatively small, but one must not forget that this risk applies to all of France,” said Dr. Brugel. Indeed, the risk appeared homogeneous across the entire territory.
This was the first study to explore this link at the national level. Although the association between the four identified factors and pancreatic risk was robust, the study had some limitations. It relied on the quantities of pesticides purchased to estimate the quantities used, Dr. Brugel pointed out.
The second study, PESTIPAC, was a case-control study conducted at the Reims University Hospital to explore the association between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in fat and urine.
The study included 26 patients with pancreatic cancer who had abdominal surgery that allowed for adipose tissue sampling (minimum 10 g). Urine was collected in the morning on an empty stomach.
A control group was formed by including 26 other patients who underwent surgery for a benign abdominal condition such as gallstones or hernia, thus allowing for the same sampling. Individuals in both groups were matched for age and body mass index, two risk factors for pancreatic cancer.
Banned Substances
In total, 345 substances were searched for using chromatography and mass spectrometry. Analyses revealed the presence of five banned substances in all patients, while nine substances were found in half of the samples.
“Contamination is very widespread, both in patients with pancreatic cancer and in the controls,” said Dr. Brugel. Consequently, for this study, between-group comparisons of substances present in all individuals could not be performed.
After adjustment, an association with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer was nonetheless observed with four liposoluble substances: 4,4-DDE, mirex or perchlordecone, trans-nonachlor, and cis-nonachlor. All four substances are herbicides that have been banned for at least 30 years.
The study also aimed to assess the effect of pesticide presence in the body on survival after pancreatic cancer. The results showed no significant difference for overall survival or progression-free survival.
“Pesticides are a credible candidate to explain the increase in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” said Dr. Brugel. However, “if associations between pancreatic cancer and pesticides exist, they remain poorly understood, and it is difficult to establish clear causality.”
Further large-scale studies will be needed to confirm these associations. An evaluation of the general population’s exposure to banned substances also appears justified, according to the researchers.
This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
MS and Epstein-Barr Virus: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here?
The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is our constant companion, infecting an estimated 90%-95% of adults. Many of us are first infected as children, when the germ may trigger cold and flu symptoms. EBV also causes mononucleosis, or kissing disease, a glandular fever that has afflicted generations of amorous young people.
Post infection, EBV settles in for the long haul and remains in the body until death. It’s thought to be largely innocuous, but EBV is now implicated as a cause of several types of cancer — including lymphoma and nasopharyngeal tumors – and multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2022, a landmark study in Science suggested that previous EBV infection is the primary cause of MS.
While there aren’t many implications for current treatment, greater insight into the origin story of MS may eventually help neurologists better diagnose and treat patients, experts said. The goal is to uncover clues that “can help us understand MS a little bit better and reveal insights that could lead to new disease-modifying therapy,” Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research with the National MS Society, said in an interview.
EBV Boosts MS Risk 32-Fold
EBV was first linked to MS back in 1981. For the 2022 study, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed blood serum from 10 million active-duty members of the US military. They focused on 801 recruits with MS and matched them with more than 1500 controls. All but one of those with MS had been infected with EBV; infection appeared to boost the risk for MS 32-fold (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).
Neurologist and associate professor Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview that the findings are “groundbreaking” and confirm that EBV is “likely the primary cause of MS.”
According to Dr. Levy, there are two main theories about why EBV causes MS. The first hypothesis, known as the “molecular mimicry” theory, suggests that “EBV is a trigger of MS, possibly when the immune system mistakes a viral protein for a myelin protein and then attacks myelin,” Dr. Levy said. In MS, the immune system attacks the protective myelin sheath and the axons it insulates.
“After that point, the virus is not necessary to maintain the disease state and eradicating the virus likely won’t have much effect since the immune response is already triggered,” he said.
The second theory is that “EBV is a driver of MS where there is an ongoing, lifelong immunological response to EBV that continuously causes damage in the central nervous system [CNS]. In theory, if we could eradicate the virus, the destructive immune response could also resolve. Thus, an EBV antiviral treatment could potentially treat and maybe cure MS,” Dr. Levy explained, noting that “removing the pathogenic antigen may be a more effective strategy than removing the immune response.”
However, “we don’t yet know which hypothesis is correct,” he said. But “there is preliminary evidence in favor of each one.”
‘Additional Fuses Must Be Ignited’
It’s also unclear why most people infected with EBV do not develop MS. It appears that “additional fuses must be ignited,” for MS to take hold, according to a commentary accompanying the landmark 2022 study.
“As far as clinical implications, knowing whether a patient has a medical or family history of mononucleosis may be a small clue, a small piece of evidence, to help with diagnosis,” Dr. Bebo said.
He agreed with Dr. Levy that an antiviral could be a promising approach “If the problem in MS is a dysfunctional immune response to EBV.”
Natalia Drosu, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-MIT Biomedical Engineering Center, said that a clinical trial of a non-immunosuppressive antiviral targeting EBV in patients with MS would be a crucial step toward better understanding the MS-EBV connection. “If we learn that antivirals are effective in MS, we should develop non-immunosuppressive therapies for patients with MS as soon as possible,” she said.
Stanford University’s Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics, who coauthored the commentary on the original Science paper, agreed that it’s worth investigating whether antiviral therapies targeting EBV will benefit patients who already have MS. But he cautioned against clinicians experimenting on their own outside of a research study. “You’d want to use the right antiviral and a properly designed trial,” he said.
Antivirals May Place a Crucial Role in MS Control
While there are no approved therapies for EBV, several MS disease-modifying therapies have anti-EBV effects, Dr. Levy said, citing anti-CD20 therapy as a clear example. It depletes B cells from the circulation, and it depletes EBV because the virus lives in the B-cell compartment. “Some MS treatments may be inadvertent EBV antivirals,” he said.
Researchers are also thinking about how they might exploit the MS-EBV link to prevent MS from developing in the first place, but there are uncertainties on that front too.
Conceivably, there may be some way to intervene in patients to treat EBV and prevent MS, such as a unique treatment for infectious mononucleosis (IM), Dr. Levy said.
Researchers are especially intrigued by signs that the timing of infection may play a role, with people infected with EBV via IM after early childhood at especially a high risk of developing MS. A 2022 German study calculated that people who developed IM were almost twice as likely as those who didn’t to develop MS within 10 years, although the risks in both groups were very small. Subgroup analysis revealed the strongest association between IM and MS was in the group infected between age 14 and 20 years (hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.00-12.37). They also saw a stronger association in men than in women.
The authors of a 2023 review in Clinical & Translational Immunology wrote that “further understanding of IM may be critical in solving the mystery” of EBV’s role in MS.
Dr. Levy said this line of questioning is important.
However, “remember that while most of the world gets EBV infections, only 1 in 1000 will get MS. So, it might not be feasible to test everyone before neurological manifestations occur,” he said.
More Questions to Answer About EBV and MS
Researchers hope to answer several questions moving forward. For one, why is EBV uniquely connected to MS? “You would think that if there were cross-reactivity to myelin, there are many viruses that could cause MS. But the association seems to be very restricted to EBV,” Dr. Levy said. “It is probably due to the fact that EBV is one of the only human viruses that can infect B cells, which play important roles in controlling immune responses.”
The molecular mimicry theory also opens up a potential treatment pathway.
A 2022 study reported “high-affinity molecular mimicry between the EBV transcription factor EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and the central nervous system protein glial cell adhesion molecule (GlialCAM)”. Antibodies against EBNA1 and GlialCAM are prevalent in patients with MS. In a mouse model of MS, the researchers showed that EBNA1 immunization exacerbates disease. The authors wrote that “Our results provide a mechanistic link for the association between MS and EBV and could guide the development of new MS therapies.”
Could an EBV Vaccine Be the Answer?
On the prevention front, perhaps the most obvious question is whether an EBV vaccine could eliminate MS for good?
Dr. Bebo, from the National MS Society, said it will be important to determine which kind of vaccine is best. Is it one that neutralizes infection with EBV? Or is it enough to simply prevent clinical manifestations?
Both types of vaccines are in development, and at least two clinical trials are now in the works. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is sponsoring a phase 1 study of an adjuvanted EBV gp350-Ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. Forty subjects aged 18-29 years will take part: 20 with EBV and 20 who are not infected. The study is expected to end in 2025.
There is also a phase 1 placebo-controlled study in progress testing an EBV vaccine based on mRNA-1189 in 422 subjects aged 12-30 years. This trial is also due to end in 2025.
“This is very exciting, but it may take a decade or two to determine whether a vaccine is effective at preventing MS,” Dr. Levy said.
Dr. Levy, Dr. Steinman, Dr. Drosu, and Dr. Bebo had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is our constant companion, infecting an estimated 90%-95% of adults. Many of us are first infected as children, when the germ may trigger cold and flu symptoms. EBV also causes mononucleosis, or kissing disease, a glandular fever that has afflicted generations of amorous young people.
Post infection, EBV settles in for the long haul and remains in the body until death. It’s thought to be largely innocuous, but EBV is now implicated as a cause of several types of cancer — including lymphoma and nasopharyngeal tumors – and multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2022, a landmark study in Science suggested that previous EBV infection is the primary cause of MS.
While there aren’t many implications for current treatment, greater insight into the origin story of MS may eventually help neurologists better diagnose and treat patients, experts said. The goal is to uncover clues that “can help us understand MS a little bit better and reveal insights that could lead to new disease-modifying therapy,” Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research with the National MS Society, said in an interview.
EBV Boosts MS Risk 32-Fold
EBV was first linked to MS back in 1981. For the 2022 study, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed blood serum from 10 million active-duty members of the US military. They focused on 801 recruits with MS and matched them with more than 1500 controls. All but one of those with MS had been infected with EBV; infection appeared to boost the risk for MS 32-fold (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).
Neurologist and associate professor Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview that the findings are “groundbreaking” and confirm that EBV is “likely the primary cause of MS.”
According to Dr. Levy, there are two main theories about why EBV causes MS. The first hypothesis, known as the “molecular mimicry” theory, suggests that “EBV is a trigger of MS, possibly when the immune system mistakes a viral protein for a myelin protein and then attacks myelin,” Dr. Levy said. In MS, the immune system attacks the protective myelin sheath and the axons it insulates.
“After that point, the virus is not necessary to maintain the disease state and eradicating the virus likely won’t have much effect since the immune response is already triggered,” he said.
The second theory is that “EBV is a driver of MS where there is an ongoing, lifelong immunological response to EBV that continuously causes damage in the central nervous system [CNS]. In theory, if we could eradicate the virus, the destructive immune response could also resolve. Thus, an EBV antiviral treatment could potentially treat and maybe cure MS,” Dr. Levy explained, noting that “removing the pathogenic antigen may be a more effective strategy than removing the immune response.”
However, “we don’t yet know which hypothesis is correct,” he said. But “there is preliminary evidence in favor of each one.”
‘Additional Fuses Must Be Ignited’
It’s also unclear why most people infected with EBV do not develop MS. It appears that “additional fuses must be ignited,” for MS to take hold, according to a commentary accompanying the landmark 2022 study.
“As far as clinical implications, knowing whether a patient has a medical or family history of mononucleosis may be a small clue, a small piece of evidence, to help with diagnosis,” Dr. Bebo said.
He agreed with Dr. Levy that an antiviral could be a promising approach “If the problem in MS is a dysfunctional immune response to EBV.”
Natalia Drosu, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-MIT Biomedical Engineering Center, said that a clinical trial of a non-immunosuppressive antiviral targeting EBV in patients with MS would be a crucial step toward better understanding the MS-EBV connection. “If we learn that antivirals are effective in MS, we should develop non-immunosuppressive therapies for patients with MS as soon as possible,” she said.
Stanford University’s Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics, who coauthored the commentary on the original Science paper, agreed that it’s worth investigating whether antiviral therapies targeting EBV will benefit patients who already have MS. But he cautioned against clinicians experimenting on their own outside of a research study. “You’d want to use the right antiviral and a properly designed trial,” he said.
Antivirals May Place a Crucial Role in MS Control
While there are no approved therapies for EBV, several MS disease-modifying therapies have anti-EBV effects, Dr. Levy said, citing anti-CD20 therapy as a clear example. It depletes B cells from the circulation, and it depletes EBV because the virus lives in the B-cell compartment. “Some MS treatments may be inadvertent EBV antivirals,” he said.
Researchers are also thinking about how they might exploit the MS-EBV link to prevent MS from developing in the first place, but there are uncertainties on that front too.
Conceivably, there may be some way to intervene in patients to treat EBV and prevent MS, such as a unique treatment for infectious mononucleosis (IM), Dr. Levy said.
Researchers are especially intrigued by signs that the timing of infection may play a role, with people infected with EBV via IM after early childhood at especially a high risk of developing MS. A 2022 German study calculated that people who developed IM were almost twice as likely as those who didn’t to develop MS within 10 years, although the risks in both groups were very small. Subgroup analysis revealed the strongest association between IM and MS was in the group infected between age 14 and 20 years (hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.00-12.37). They also saw a stronger association in men than in women.
The authors of a 2023 review in Clinical & Translational Immunology wrote that “further understanding of IM may be critical in solving the mystery” of EBV’s role in MS.
Dr. Levy said this line of questioning is important.
However, “remember that while most of the world gets EBV infections, only 1 in 1000 will get MS. So, it might not be feasible to test everyone before neurological manifestations occur,” he said.
More Questions to Answer About EBV and MS
Researchers hope to answer several questions moving forward. For one, why is EBV uniquely connected to MS? “You would think that if there were cross-reactivity to myelin, there are many viruses that could cause MS. But the association seems to be very restricted to EBV,” Dr. Levy said. “It is probably due to the fact that EBV is one of the only human viruses that can infect B cells, which play important roles in controlling immune responses.”
The molecular mimicry theory also opens up a potential treatment pathway.
A 2022 study reported “high-affinity molecular mimicry between the EBV transcription factor EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and the central nervous system protein glial cell adhesion molecule (GlialCAM)”. Antibodies against EBNA1 and GlialCAM are prevalent in patients with MS. In a mouse model of MS, the researchers showed that EBNA1 immunization exacerbates disease. The authors wrote that “Our results provide a mechanistic link for the association between MS and EBV and could guide the development of new MS therapies.”
Could an EBV Vaccine Be the Answer?
On the prevention front, perhaps the most obvious question is whether an EBV vaccine could eliminate MS for good?
Dr. Bebo, from the National MS Society, said it will be important to determine which kind of vaccine is best. Is it one that neutralizes infection with EBV? Or is it enough to simply prevent clinical manifestations?
Both types of vaccines are in development, and at least two clinical trials are now in the works. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is sponsoring a phase 1 study of an adjuvanted EBV gp350-Ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. Forty subjects aged 18-29 years will take part: 20 with EBV and 20 who are not infected. The study is expected to end in 2025.
There is also a phase 1 placebo-controlled study in progress testing an EBV vaccine based on mRNA-1189 in 422 subjects aged 12-30 years. This trial is also due to end in 2025.
“This is very exciting, but it may take a decade or two to determine whether a vaccine is effective at preventing MS,” Dr. Levy said.
Dr. Levy, Dr. Steinman, Dr. Drosu, and Dr. Bebo had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is our constant companion, infecting an estimated 90%-95% of adults. Many of us are first infected as children, when the germ may trigger cold and flu symptoms. EBV also causes mononucleosis, or kissing disease, a glandular fever that has afflicted generations of amorous young people.
Post infection, EBV settles in for the long haul and remains in the body until death. It’s thought to be largely innocuous, but EBV is now implicated as a cause of several types of cancer — including lymphoma and nasopharyngeal tumors – and multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2022, a landmark study in Science suggested that previous EBV infection is the primary cause of MS.
While there aren’t many implications for current treatment, greater insight into the origin story of MS may eventually help neurologists better diagnose and treat patients, experts said. The goal is to uncover clues that “can help us understand MS a little bit better and reveal insights that could lead to new disease-modifying therapy,” Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research with the National MS Society, said in an interview.
EBV Boosts MS Risk 32-Fold
EBV was first linked to MS back in 1981. For the 2022 study, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed blood serum from 10 million active-duty members of the US military. They focused on 801 recruits with MS and matched them with more than 1500 controls. All but one of those with MS had been infected with EBV; infection appeared to boost the risk for MS 32-fold (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).
Neurologist and associate professor Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview that the findings are “groundbreaking” and confirm that EBV is “likely the primary cause of MS.”
According to Dr. Levy, there are two main theories about why EBV causes MS. The first hypothesis, known as the “molecular mimicry” theory, suggests that “EBV is a trigger of MS, possibly when the immune system mistakes a viral protein for a myelin protein and then attacks myelin,” Dr. Levy said. In MS, the immune system attacks the protective myelin sheath and the axons it insulates.
“After that point, the virus is not necessary to maintain the disease state and eradicating the virus likely won’t have much effect since the immune response is already triggered,” he said.
The second theory is that “EBV is a driver of MS where there is an ongoing, lifelong immunological response to EBV that continuously causes damage in the central nervous system [CNS]. In theory, if we could eradicate the virus, the destructive immune response could also resolve. Thus, an EBV antiviral treatment could potentially treat and maybe cure MS,” Dr. Levy explained, noting that “removing the pathogenic antigen may be a more effective strategy than removing the immune response.”
However, “we don’t yet know which hypothesis is correct,” he said. But “there is preliminary evidence in favor of each one.”
‘Additional Fuses Must Be Ignited’
It’s also unclear why most people infected with EBV do not develop MS. It appears that “additional fuses must be ignited,” for MS to take hold, according to a commentary accompanying the landmark 2022 study.
“As far as clinical implications, knowing whether a patient has a medical or family history of mononucleosis may be a small clue, a small piece of evidence, to help with diagnosis,” Dr. Bebo said.
He agreed with Dr. Levy that an antiviral could be a promising approach “If the problem in MS is a dysfunctional immune response to EBV.”
Natalia Drosu, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-MIT Biomedical Engineering Center, said that a clinical trial of a non-immunosuppressive antiviral targeting EBV in patients with MS would be a crucial step toward better understanding the MS-EBV connection. “If we learn that antivirals are effective in MS, we should develop non-immunosuppressive therapies for patients with MS as soon as possible,” she said.
Stanford University’s Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics, who coauthored the commentary on the original Science paper, agreed that it’s worth investigating whether antiviral therapies targeting EBV will benefit patients who already have MS. But he cautioned against clinicians experimenting on their own outside of a research study. “You’d want to use the right antiviral and a properly designed trial,” he said.
Antivirals May Place a Crucial Role in MS Control
While there are no approved therapies for EBV, several MS disease-modifying therapies have anti-EBV effects, Dr. Levy said, citing anti-CD20 therapy as a clear example. It depletes B cells from the circulation, and it depletes EBV because the virus lives in the B-cell compartment. “Some MS treatments may be inadvertent EBV antivirals,” he said.
Researchers are also thinking about how they might exploit the MS-EBV link to prevent MS from developing in the first place, but there are uncertainties on that front too.
Conceivably, there may be some way to intervene in patients to treat EBV and prevent MS, such as a unique treatment for infectious mononucleosis (IM), Dr. Levy said.
Researchers are especially intrigued by signs that the timing of infection may play a role, with people infected with EBV via IM after early childhood at especially a high risk of developing MS. A 2022 German study calculated that people who developed IM were almost twice as likely as those who didn’t to develop MS within 10 years, although the risks in both groups were very small. Subgroup analysis revealed the strongest association between IM and MS was in the group infected between age 14 and 20 years (hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.00-12.37). They also saw a stronger association in men than in women.
The authors of a 2023 review in Clinical & Translational Immunology wrote that “further understanding of IM may be critical in solving the mystery” of EBV’s role in MS.
Dr. Levy said this line of questioning is important.
However, “remember that while most of the world gets EBV infections, only 1 in 1000 will get MS. So, it might not be feasible to test everyone before neurological manifestations occur,” he said.
More Questions to Answer About EBV and MS
Researchers hope to answer several questions moving forward. For one, why is EBV uniquely connected to MS? “You would think that if there were cross-reactivity to myelin, there are many viruses that could cause MS. But the association seems to be very restricted to EBV,” Dr. Levy said. “It is probably due to the fact that EBV is one of the only human viruses that can infect B cells, which play important roles in controlling immune responses.”
The molecular mimicry theory also opens up a potential treatment pathway.
A 2022 study reported “high-affinity molecular mimicry between the EBV transcription factor EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and the central nervous system protein glial cell adhesion molecule (GlialCAM)”. Antibodies against EBNA1 and GlialCAM are prevalent in patients with MS. In a mouse model of MS, the researchers showed that EBNA1 immunization exacerbates disease. The authors wrote that “Our results provide a mechanistic link for the association between MS and EBV and could guide the development of new MS therapies.”
Could an EBV Vaccine Be the Answer?
On the prevention front, perhaps the most obvious question is whether an EBV vaccine could eliminate MS for good?
Dr. Bebo, from the National MS Society, said it will be important to determine which kind of vaccine is best. Is it one that neutralizes infection with EBV? Or is it enough to simply prevent clinical manifestations?
Both types of vaccines are in development, and at least two clinical trials are now in the works. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is sponsoring a phase 1 study of an adjuvanted EBV gp350-Ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. Forty subjects aged 18-29 years will take part: 20 with EBV and 20 who are not infected. The study is expected to end in 2025.
There is also a phase 1 placebo-controlled study in progress testing an EBV vaccine based on mRNA-1189 in 422 subjects aged 12-30 years. This trial is also due to end in 2025.
“This is very exciting, but it may take a decade or two to determine whether a vaccine is effective at preventing MS,” Dr. Levy said.
Dr. Levy, Dr. Steinman, Dr. Drosu, and Dr. Bebo had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Blood Cancer Emergencies: Hematologists’ Late-Night Calls
When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.
In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.
Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
Leukocytosis
Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.
“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”
Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.
“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”
Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.
There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
Tumor lysis syndrome
While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”
It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
Differentiation syndrome
According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.
A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”
In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.
“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”
In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.
Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.
When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.
In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.
Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
Leukocytosis
Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.
“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”
Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.
“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”
Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.
There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
Tumor lysis syndrome
While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”
It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
Differentiation syndrome
According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.
A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”
In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.
“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”
In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.
Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.
When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.
In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.
Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
Leukocytosis
Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.
“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”
Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.
“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”
Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.
There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
Tumor lysis syndrome
While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”
It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
Differentiation syndrome
According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.
A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”
In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.
“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”
In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.
Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.
Lung Cancer Vaccine Gets Injection of Funding for Research and Development
Development of a , according to a press release from the University of Oxford, England.
A team of scientists from the University of Oxford, the Francis Crick Institute, and University College London (UCL) will receive funding from the Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation.
The LungVax vaccine is based on technology similar to that used in the creation of the successful Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and will carry a DNA strand that trains the immune system to recognize the neoantigens that indicate abnormal lung cancer cells and then activate the immune system to kill these cells and stop the cancer, according to the statement.
Initially, scientists are working to develop a vaccine that triggers an immune response in the lab setting. If successful, the vaccine will move directly into a clinical trial. “If the subsequent early trial delivers promising results, the vaccine could then be scaled up to bigger trials for people at high risk of lung cancer,” according to the release.
Help for High-Risk Patients
Lung cancer is diagnosed in approximately 48,000 individuals in the United Kingdom each year, and the average 10-year survival is only 10%, Tim Elliott, MD, professor of immuno-oncology at the University of Oxford and lead researcher on the LungVax project, said in an interview. Nearly three-quarters of the 35,000 annual deaths are preventable by quitting smoking, which remains the best risk reduction strategy to date, he said. However, “an intervention such as a vaccine, given when people are healthy and are more likely to have a strong immune system, could benefit many thousands per year in the UK and 1.8 million patients worldwide,” he said.
Preliminary Trial Plans
The initial trial of the vaccine is a collaboration between Oxford University, UCL, and the Francis Crick Institute, Dr. Elliott said. The trial is a culmination of research into the biology and genetics of lung cancer at UCL and vaccine design research at the University of Oxford.
“We are at a very early stage of the program, which will develop over the next 6 years if all goes to plan,” said Dr. Elliott. The vaccine is designed on the basis of shared lung cancer antigens and packaged into the ChAdOx delivery system that proved successful as the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, he said.
“We intend to vaccinate individuals who have had curative surgery for their lung cancer after being diagnosed with a very early stage of the disease,” Dr. Elliott said.
Challenges to vaccine development include knowing whether there is a clinical benefit, Dr. Elliott noted. “Our clinical trial is calculated to show up to 15% reduction in risk over 3-5 years, but only long-term follow-up will really tell us whether the immune responses we see to the vaccine within the first few weeks will have a long-term effect,” he emphasized.
In clinical practice, “these people are cancer-free and healthy after surgery,” said Dr. Elliott. However, “they are at a high risk of recurrence; 30%-70% of ex-patients will develop new cancer in their lifetime and in the majority of cases that will happen within 2 years after surgery,” he said. “We think that vaccinating them against common lung cancer antigens could reduce this risk significantly and remove some of the uncertainty that they live with after their operation.”
Vaccine Has Potential for Immense Impact
Lung cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. “In the past few decades, public health measures including tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening have contributed to the reduction of lung cancer incidence and improved survival in high-income countries, but lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide,” Saadia A. Faiz, MD, a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board, said in an interview.
“Further, new cancer diagnoses continue to increase in low-income countries where there may not be widespread public health initiatives and/or access to healthcare. Thus, development of a vaccine to prevent lung cancer could be very impactful,” she said.
Challenges to vaccine development include the heterogeneous nature of the disease, which may occur in smokers and nonsmokers, said Dr. Faiz. “Targeting the various molecular markers may be challenging,” she said. However, building on the success of other vaccine initiatives, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine for cervical cancer, and COVID-19 vaccines with collaboration and clinical research will ideally overcome these challenges, she added.
“The potential implications for a lung cancer vaccine are immense,” said Dr. Faiz.
A lung cancer vaccine could prevent a deadly disease, but continued efforts in risk factor reduction and lung cancer screening will also be important, she said.
“Depending on the results of this clinical research, longitudinal data regarding efficacy, side effects, and prevention will be vital prior to application in high-risk patients in clinical practice,” she emphasized.
The development of the lung cancer vaccine is supported in part by Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation. Dr. Elliott has received support from Cancer Research UK but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faiz had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Development of a , according to a press release from the University of Oxford, England.
A team of scientists from the University of Oxford, the Francis Crick Institute, and University College London (UCL) will receive funding from the Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation.
The LungVax vaccine is based on technology similar to that used in the creation of the successful Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and will carry a DNA strand that trains the immune system to recognize the neoantigens that indicate abnormal lung cancer cells and then activate the immune system to kill these cells and stop the cancer, according to the statement.
Initially, scientists are working to develop a vaccine that triggers an immune response in the lab setting. If successful, the vaccine will move directly into a clinical trial. “If the subsequent early trial delivers promising results, the vaccine could then be scaled up to bigger trials for people at high risk of lung cancer,” according to the release.
Help for High-Risk Patients
Lung cancer is diagnosed in approximately 48,000 individuals in the United Kingdom each year, and the average 10-year survival is only 10%, Tim Elliott, MD, professor of immuno-oncology at the University of Oxford and lead researcher on the LungVax project, said in an interview. Nearly three-quarters of the 35,000 annual deaths are preventable by quitting smoking, which remains the best risk reduction strategy to date, he said. However, “an intervention such as a vaccine, given when people are healthy and are more likely to have a strong immune system, could benefit many thousands per year in the UK and 1.8 million patients worldwide,” he said.
Preliminary Trial Plans
The initial trial of the vaccine is a collaboration between Oxford University, UCL, and the Francis Crick Institute, Dr. Elliott said. The trial is a culmination of research into the biology and genetics of lung cancer at UCL and vaccine design research at the University of Oxford.
“We are at a very early stage of the program, which will develop over the next 6 years if all goes to plan,” said Dr. Elliott. The vaccine is designed on the basis of shared lung cancer antigens and packaged into the ChAdOx delivery system that proved successful as the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, he said.
“We intend to vaccinate individuals who have had curative surgery for their lung cancer after being diagnosed with a very early stage of the disease,” Dr. Elliott said.
Challenges to vaccine development include knowing whether there is a clinical benefit, Dr. Elliott noted. “Our clinical trial is calculated to show up to 15% reduction in risk over 3-5 years, but only long-term follow-up will really tell us whether the immune responses we see to the vaccine within the first few weeks will have a long-term effect,” he emphasized.
In clinical practice, “these people are cancer-free and healthy after surgery,” said Dr. Elliott. However, “they are at a high risk of recurrence; 30%-70% of ex-patients will develop new cancer in their lifetime and in the majority of cases that will happen within 2 years after surgery,” he said. “We think that vaccinating them against common lung cancer antigens could reduce this risk significantly and remove some of the uncertainty that they live with after their operation.”
Vaccine Has Potential for Immense Impact
Lung cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. “In the past few decades, public health measures including tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening have contributed to the reduction of lung cancer incidence and improved survival in high-income countries, but lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide,” Saadia A. Faiz, MD, a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board, said in an interview.
“Further, new cancer diagnoses continue to increase in low-income countries where there may not be widespread public health initiatives and/or access to healthcare. Thus, development of a vaccine to prevent lung cancer could be very impactful,” she said.
Challenges to vaccine development include the heterogeneous nature of the disease, which may occur in smokers and nonsmokers, said Dr. Faiz. “Targeting the various molecular markers may be challenging,” she said. However, building on the success of other vaccine initiatives, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine for cervical cancer, and COVID-19 vaccines with collaboration and clinical research will ideally overcome these challenges, she added.
“The potential implications for a lung cancer vaccine are immense,” said Dr. Faiz.
A lung cancer vaccine could prevent a deadly disease, but continued efforts in risk factor reduction and lung cancer screening will also be important, she said.
“Depending on the results of this clinical research, longitudinal data regarding efficacy, side effects, and prevention will be vital prior to application in high-risk patients in clinical practice,” she emphasized.
The development of the lung cancer vaccine is supported in part by Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation. Dr. Elliott has received support from Cancer Research UK but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faiz had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Development of a , according to a press release from the University of Oxford, England.
A team of scientists from the University of Oxford, the Francis Crick Institute, and University College London (UCL) will receive funding from the Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation.
The LungVax vaccine is based on technology similar to that used in the creation of the successful Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and will carry a DNA strand that trains the immune system to recognize the neoantigens that indicate abnormal lung cancer cells and then activate the immune system to kill these cells and stop the cancer, according to the statement.
Initially, scientists are working to develop a vaccine that triggers an immune response in the lab setting. If successful, the vaccine will move directly into a clinical trial. “If the subsequent early trial delivers promising results, the vaccine could then be scaled up to bigger trials for people at high risk of lung cancer,” according to the release.
Help for High-Risk Patients
Lung cancer is diagnosed in approximately 48,000 individuals in the United Kingdom each year, and the average 10-year survival is only 10%, Tim Elliott, MD, professor of immuno-oncology at the University of Oxford and lead researcher on the LungVax project, said in an interview. Nearly three-quarters of the 35,000 annual deaths are preventable by quitting smoking, which remains the best risk reduction strategy to date, he said. However, “an intervention such as a vaccine, given when people are healthy and are more likely to have a strong immune system, could benefit many thousands per year in the UK and 1.8 million patients worldwide,” he said.
Preliminary Trial Plans
The initial trial of the vaccine is a collaboration between Oxford University, UCL, and the Francis Crick Institute, Dr. Elliott said. The trial is a culmination of research into the biology and genetics of lung cancer at UCL and vaccine design research at the University of Oxford.
“We are at a very early stage of the program, which will develop over the next 6 years if all goes to plan,” said Dr. Elliott. The vaccine is designed on the basis of shared lung cancer antigens and packaged into the ChAdOx delivery system that proved successful as the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, he said.
“We intend to vaccinate individuals who have had curative surgery for their lung cancer after being diagnosed with a very early stage of the disease,” Dr. Elliott said.
Challenges to vaccine development include knowing whether there is a clinical benefit, Dr. Elliott noted. “Our clinical trial is calculated to show up to 15% reduction in risk over 3-5 years, but only long-term follow-up will really tell us whether the immune responses we see to the vaccine within the first few weeks will have a long-term effect,” he emphasized.
In clinical practice, “these people are cancer-free and healthy after surgery,” said Dr. Elliott. However, “they are at a high risk of recurrence; 30%-70% of ex-patients will develop new cancer in their lifetime and in the majority of cases that will happen within 2 years after surgery,” he said. “We think that vaccinating them against common lung cancer antigens could reduce this risk significantly and remove some of the uncertainty that they live with after their operation.”
Vaccine Has Potential for Immense Impact
Lung cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. “In the past few decades, public health measures including tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening have contributed to the reduction of lung cancer incidence and improved survival in high-income countries, but lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide,” Saadia A. Faiz, MD, a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board, said in an interview.
“Further, new cancer diagnoses continue to increase in low-income countries where there may not be widespread public health initiatives and/or access to healthcare. Thus, development of a vaccine to prevent lung cancer could be very impactful,” she said.
Challenges to vaccine development include the heterogeneous nature of the disease, which may occur in smokers and nonsmokers, said Dr. Faiz. “Targeting the various molecular markers may be challenging,” she said. However, building on the success of other vaccine initiatives, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine for cervical cancer, and COVID-19 vaccines with collaboration and clinical research will ideally overcome these challenges, she added.
“The potential implications for a lung cancer vaccine are immense,” said Dr. Faiz.
A lung cancer vaccine could prevent a deadly disease, but continued efforts in risk factor reduction and lung cancer screening will also be important, she said.
“Depending on the results of this clinical research, longitudinal data regarding efficacy, side effects, and prevention will be vital prior to application in high-risk patients in clinical practice,” she emphasized.
The development of the lung cancer vaccine is supported in part by Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation. Dr. Elliott has received support from Cancer Research UK but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faiz had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Computer-Aided Colonoscopy Falls Short in Real-World Practice
, according to investigators.
Although CADe did not increase burden of colonoscopy in the real-world, these real-world detection rates casts doubt on the generalizability of positive findings from randomized trials, reported lead author Harsh K. Patel, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.
CADe-assisted colonoscopy has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve ADR, particularly with the recent publication of a meta-analysis involving 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, results of RCTs are not necessarily reproducible in clinical practice.”
RCTs evaluating this technology are susceptible to various issues with validity, they noted, such as psychological bias stemming from lack of blinding to the possibility that CADe could reduce operator attention, paradoxically “deskilling” endoscopists.
The present meta-analysis aimed to overcome these potential shortfalls by analyzing nonrandomized data from eight studies involving 9,782 patients.
“The lack of a highly controlled setting reduces the psychological pressure of the endoscopists to demonstrate a possible benefit of CADe (i.e., the operator bias) and allows endoscopists to use CADe according to their preferences and attitudes which we usually experience in a real-world clinical practice,” the investigators wrote. “On the other hand, noncontrolled factors may affect the outcome of the study, especially when considering that an equivalent distribution of prevalence of disease is required for a fair assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention.”
This approach revealed less favorable outcomes than those reported by RCTs.
CADe-assisted ADR was not significantly different from ADR for standard colonoscopy (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28), nor was mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04-0.32).
“Our study provides a contrasting perspective to those results previously known from the randomized studies,” the investigators wrote.
While detection benefits were not identified, burden of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was not elevated either.
Mean nonneoplastic lesions per colonoscopy was similar between modalities (0.52 vs 0.47; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07-0.34), as was withdrawal time (14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; mean difference, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18-1.90).
Dr. Patel and colleagues described “a high level of heterogeneity that was qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the heterogeneity discovered in the prior meta-analysis of RCTs.” Unlike the RCT meta-analysis, which had no studies with an ADR outcome favoring the control arm, the present meta-analysis found that one third of the included studies favored the control arm.
“This qualitative difference generates a much higher degree of ambiguity, as it does not apply only to the magnitude of the effect of CADe, but it puts in question the actual existence of any CADe-related benefit,” they wrote. “An important point to make is that the analysis of adenoma and serrated lesions per colonoscopy supported the qualitative heterogeneity, favoring the control arm over the CADe arm, in the direction of the effect.”
Dr. Patel and colleagues suggested that the concurrent lack of benefit and lack of harm associated with CADe in the present meta-analysis is “interesting,” and may point to underutilization or a lack of effect of CADe.
“To address the uncertainties in the current literature, we recommend conducting additional randomized studies in a more pragmatic setting,” they concluded.
This meta-analysis was supported by the European Commission and AIRC. The investigators disclosed relationships with NEC, Satisfy, Odin, and others.
The advent of AI in colonoscopy through computer-aided detection (CADe) systems has been promising, with over 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affirming its benefits. However, this enthusiasm has been tempered by several recent nonrandomized studies indicating no real-world advantage, as discussed in Patel et al.’s systematic review and meta-analysis in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
In addition, a critical consideration with evaluating any AI/CADe system is they often undergo frequent updates, each promising improved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. This is an interesting dilemma and raises questions about the enduring relevance of studies conducted using outdated versions of CADe.
In my opinion, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of CADe for colonoscopy in a real-world setting. The definitive assessment of CADe’s real-world value necessitates larger, well-structured trials that mirror actual clinical environments and span extended periods of time, taking care to minimize biases that may have influenced the results of current published studies.
Nabil M. Mansour, MD, is assistant professor of medicine in the Section of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has served as a consultant for Iterative Health.
The advent of AI in colonoscopy through computer-aided detection (CADe) systems has been promising, with over 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affirming its benefits. However, this enthusiasm has been tempered by several recent nonrandomized studies indicating no real-world advantage, as discussed in Patel et al.’s systematic review and meta-analysis in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
In addition, a critical consideration with evaluating any AI/CADe system is they often undergo frequent updates, each promising improved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. This is an interesting dilemma and raises questions about the enduring relevance of studies conducted using outdated versions of CADe.
In my opinion, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of CADe for colonoscopy in a real-world setting. The definitive assessment of CADe’s real-world value necessitates larger, well-structured trials that mirror actual clinical environments and span extended periods of time, taking care to minimize biases that may have influenced the results of current published studies.
Nabil M. Mansour, MD, is assistant professor of medicine in the Section of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has served as a consultant for Iterative Health.
The advent of AI in colonoscopy through computer-aided detection (CADe) systems has been promising, with over 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affirming its benefits. However, this enthusiasm has been tempered by several recent nonrandomized studies indicating no real-world advantage, as discussed in Patel et al.’s systematic review and meta-analysis in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
In addition, a critical consideration with evaluating any AI/CADe system is they often undergo frequent updates, each promising improved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. This is an interesting dilemma and raises questions about the enduring relevance of studies conducted using outdated versions of CADe.
In my opinion, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of CADe for colonoscopy in a real-world setting. The definitive assessment of CADe’s real-world value necessitates larger, well-structured trials that mirror actual clinical environments and span extended periods of time, taking care to minimize biases that may have influenced the results of current published studies.
Nabil M. Mansour, MD, is assistant professor of medicine in the Section of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has served as a consultant for Iterative Health.
, according to investigators.
Although CADe did not increase burden of colonoscopy in the real-world, these real-world detection rates casts doubt on the generalizability of positive findings from randomized trials, reported lead author Harsh K. Patel, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.
CADe-assisted colonoscopy has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve ADR, particularly with the recent publication of a meta-analysis involving 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, results of RCTs are not necessarily reproducible in clinical practice.”
RCTs evaluating this technology are susceptible to various issues with validity, they noted, such as psychological bias stemming from lack of blinding to the possibility that CADe could reduce operator attention, paradoxically “deskilling” endoscopists.
The present meta-analysis aimed to overcome these potential shortfalls by analyzing nonrandomized data from eight studies involving 9,782 patients.
“The lack of a highly controlled setting reduces the psychological pressure of the endoscopists to demonstrate a possible benefit of CADe (i.e., the operator bias) and allows endoscopists to use CADe according to their preferences and attitudes which we usually experience in a real-world clinical practice,” the investigators wrote. “On the other hand, noncontrolled factors may affect the outcome of the study, especially when considering that an equivalent distribution of prevalence of disease is required for a fair assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention.”
This approach revealed less favorable outcomes than those reported by RCTs.
CADe-assisted ADR was not significantly different from ADR for standard colonoscopy (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28), nor was mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04-0.32).
“Our study provides a contrasting perspective to those results previously known from the randomized studies,” the investigators wrote.
While detection benefits were not identified, burden of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was not elevated either.
Mean nonneoplastic lesions per colonoscopy was similar between modalities (0.52 vs 0.47; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07-0.34), as was withdrawal time (14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; mean difference, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18-1.90).
Dr. Patel and colleagues described “a high level of heterogeneity that was qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the heterogeneity discovered in the prior meta-analysis of RCTs.” Unlike the RCT meta-analysis, which had no studies with an ADR outcome favoring the control arm, the present meta-analysis found that one third of the included studies favored the control arm.
“This qualitative difference generates a much higher degree of ambiguity, as it does not apply only to the magnitude of the effect of CADe, but it puts in question the actual existence of any CADe-related benefit,” they wrote. “An important point to make is that the analysis of adenoma and serrated lesions per colonoscopy supported the qualitative heterogeneity, favoring the control arm over the CADe arm, in the direction of the effect.”
Dr. Patel and colleagues suggested that the concurrent lack of benefit and lack of harm associated with CADe in the present meta-analysis is “interesting,” and may point to underutilization or a lack of effect of CADe.
“To address the uncertainties in the current literature, we recommend conducting additional randomized studies in a more pragmatic setting,” they concluded.
This meta-analysis was supported by the European Commission and AIRC. The investigators disclosed relationships with NEC, Satisfy, Odin, and others.
, according to investigators.
Although CADe did not increase burden of colonoscopy in the real-world, these real-world detection rates casts doubt on the generalizability of positive findings from randomized trials, reported lead author Harsh K. Patel, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.
CADe-assisted colonoscopy has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve ADR, particularly with the recent publication of a meta-analysis involving 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, results of RCTs are not necessarily reproducible in clinical practice.”
RCTs evaluating this technology are susceptible to various issues with validity, they noted, such as psychological bias stemming from lack of blinding to the possibility that CADe could reduce operator attention, paradoxically “deskilling” endoscopists.
The present meta-analysis aimed to overcome these potential shortfalls by analyzing nonrandomized data from eight studies involving 9,782 patients.
“The lack of a highly controlled setting reduces the psychological pressure of the endoscopists to demonstrate a possible benefit of CADe (i.e., the operator bias) and allows endoscopists to use CADe according to their preferences and attitudes which we usually experience in a real-world clinical practice,” the investigators wrote. “On the other hand, noncontrolled factors may affect the outcome of the study, especially when considering that an equivalent distribution of prevalence of disease is required for a fair assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention.”
This approach revealed less favorable outcomes than those reported by RCTs.
CADe-assisted ADR was not significantly different from ADR for standard colonoscopy (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28), nor was mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04-0.32).
“Our study provides a contrasting perspective to those results previously known from the randomized studies,” the investigators wrote.
While detection benefits were not identified, burden of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was not elevated either.
Mean nonneoplastic lesions per colonoscopy was similar between modalities (0.52 vs 0.47; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07-0.34), as was withdrawal time (14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; mean difference, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18-1.90).
Dr. Patel and colleagues described “a high level of heterogeneity that was qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the heterogeneity discovered in the prior meta-analysis of RCTs.” Unlike the RCT meta-analysis, which had no studies with an ADR outcome favoring the control arm, the present meta-analysis found that one third of the included studies favored the control arm.
“This qualitative difference generates a much higher degree of ambiguity, as it does not apply only to the magnitude of the effect of CADe, but it puts in question the actual existence of any CADe-related benefit,” they wrote. “An important point to make is that the analysis of adenoma and serrated lesions per colonoscopy supported the qualitative heterogeneity, favoring the control arm over the CADe arm, in the direction of the effect.”
Dr. Patel and colleagues suggested that the concurrent lack of benefit and lack of harm associated with CADe in the present meta-analysis is “interesting,” and may point to underutilization or a lack of effect of CADe.
“To address the uncertainties in the current literature, we recommend conducting additional randomized studies in a more pragmatic setting,” they concluded.
This meta-analysis was supported by the European Commission and AIRC. The investigators disclosed relationships with NEC, Satisfy, Odin, and others.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY