Breast Cancer

Of four surgical procedures for breast cancer that have been determined to be of low value because they yield no meaningful clinical benefit, two continue to be utilized. In fact, the use of two of these procedures has increased in the United States, new research shows.

“This is the first study to [evaluate] all four of the low-value breast cancer procedures at the same time and try to draw some conclusions on practice patterns across facilities,” said senior author Lesly A. Dossett, MD, MPH, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The two low-value procedures that have increased in use are contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral cancer and sentinel lymph node biopsy for clinically node-negative women aged 70 years and older with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) cancer.

“This suggests that formal efforts to reduce low value care through dissemination of guidelines, education of patients or providers, or alignment of incentives will be necessary to achieve full deimplementation,” she told this news organization.

The researchers emphasize that the providing of services that have no clinically meaningful benefit is a national epidemic, costing the United States more than $100 billion dollars annually.

These trends are notable and likely reflect a broad range of factors, commented Katharine Yao, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at the NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Ill.

“I think the better message here is not so much that facilities are doing too many low-value procedures but more that these procedures are still being performed, and the trends show increased rates over the years – why is that?”

“Perhaps there are other factors here we need to explore: why do these procedures persist, and why, despite the Choosing Wisely campaign, [do] they continue to increase?” she said in an interview. “Maybe there is something we can learn here about patient and physician preferences that perhaps we should be paying more attention to.”

The study was published on Feb. 3 in JAMA Surgery.

For the analysis, Dr. Dossett and her colleagues evaluated surgical data from the National Cancer Database. They examined data from more than 1,500 surgical facilities and from surgeries involving 920,256 women in the United States who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2016.

The team focused on four procedures that have been determined to be of low value by Choosing Wisely, a campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, on the basis of recommendations of the American College of Surgeons, the Society for Surgical Oncology, and the American Society for Breast Surgeons.

The results show that, for two of the four low-value procedures, use declined significantly over the study period. These two procedures were axillary lymph node dissection for limited nodal disease, for patients undergoing lumpectomy and radiotherapy, and lumpectomy re-excision for patients whose surgical margins were close but were negative for invasive cancer.

Axillary lymph node dissection declined from 63% in 2004 to 14% in 2016. The steepest reduction was seen soon after data from the Z0011 study were published in 2010. The rates for this procedure halved in the following year, from 62% in 2010 to 31% in 2011 (P < .001).

Likewise, reoperation rates after lumpectomy dropped from 19% in 2004 to 15% in 2016. The sharpest decline, from 18% in 2013 to 16% in 2014, corresponded to the publishing of the SSO/ASTRO consensus statement, which designated a negative margin as having “no tumor on ink.”

Two of the four low-value procedures increased in use during the study period.

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increased nearly 2.5-fold among women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing mastectomy, from 11% in 2004 to 26% in 2016, despite SSO guidelines issued in 2007 recommending that the procedure not be used for women at average risk.

In addition, rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy among women aged 70 years and older with clinically node-negative HR+ breast cancer increased from 78% in 2004 to 87% in 2012. There was no significant decline in the use of this procedure, even after the CALGB 9343 trial from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B showed no survival benefit in 2013.
 

Patterns at hospitals vary

The authors of the study also examined hospital factors, which can heavily influence choice of procedure.

These results showed that the greatest reductions of the low-value breast cancer procedures occurred at academic research programs and high-volume surgical facilities. Elsewhere, the rates varied widely.

Interfacility rates of axillary lymph node dissection ranged from 7% to 47%; lumpectomy reoperation rates ranged from 3% to 62%; contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates ranged from 9% to 67%; and sentinel lymph node biopsy rates ranged from 25% to 97%.

Being an outlier for use of one procedure did not necessarily translate to nonconformity for others. Factors such as a hospital’s volume of breast cancer cases or the type of facility did not appear to influence rates of axillary lymph node dissection or lumpectomy reoperation.

However, the rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were significantly higher in high-volume centers and integrated network cancer programs, compared with community cancer programs (23% vs. 2%; P < .001).

Dr. Dossett said the lack of consistency was somewhat unexpected.

“We expected we would find some facilities were constantly good or bad at deimplementation or that there would be stronger associations between certain facility characteristics and performance,” she said. “That really wasn’t the case, and most facilities had mixed performance.”
 

Evidence may or may not influence trends

The authors speculate on why the low-value designation is in some cases being ignored.

The evidence regarding the risk for lymphedema related to axillary lymph node dissection procedure appears to have helped reduce its use, they note.

However, surgeons have been much less convinced of benefits in omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy, either because they are unfamiliar with the recommendations to avoid the procedure, or they may feel the procedure adds only minimal time and risk to a patient’s operation, the authors explain.

Patients may be convinced to opt to omit sentinel lymph node biopsy if they are properly counseled regarding the risks and benefits of the procedure, Dr. Dossett commented.

Dr. Yao added that, for elderly patients, age can play an important role in sentinel node biopsy.

“Patients’ life expectancy has increased over the years, and node status may impact adjuvant therapy decisions for these patients, even chemotherapy decisions,” she said.

Pressure to continue to perform contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is believed to be significantly patient driven, Dr. Dossett noted.

“I ultimately think the best way to reduce contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is to encourage women with small cancers to undergo breast-conserving surgery, i.e., lumpectomy, instead of mastectomy,” she explained.

“Once the decision for mastectomy is made, there is often a great deal of momentum towards a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.”

“Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is a personal preference that many surgeons are willing to do for their patients,” Dr. Yao explained.

“Although no survival benefit has been demonstrated for this procedure, patients find many other benefits that have nothing to do with survival.”

The authors and Dr. Yao have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Of four surgical procedures for breast cancer that have been determined to be of low value because they yield no meaningful clinical benefit, two continue to be utilized. In fact, the use of two of these procedures has increased in the United States, new research shows.

“This is the first study to [evaluate] all four of the low-value breast cancer procedures at the same time and try to draw some conclusions on practice patterns across facilities,” said senior author Lesly A. Dossett, MD, MPH, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The two low-value procedures that have increased in use are contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral cancer and sentinel lymph node biopsy for clinically node-negative women aged 70 years and older with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) cancer.

“This suggests that formal efforts to reduce low value care through dissemination of guidelines, education of patients or providers, or alignment of incentives will be necessary to achieve full deimplementation,” she told this news organization.

The researchers emphasize that the providing of services that have no clinically meaningful benefit is a national epidemic, costing the United States more than $100 billion dollars annually.

These trends are notable and likely reflect a broad range of factors, commented Katharine Yao, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at the NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Ill.

“I think the better message here is not so much that facilities are doing too many low-value procedures but more that these procedures are still being performed, and the trends show increased rates over the years – why is that?”

“Perhaps there are other factors here we need to explore: why do these procedures persist, and why, despite the Choosing Wisely campaign, [do] they continue to increase?” she said in an interview. “Maybe there is something we can learn here about patient and physician preferences that perhaps we should be paying more attention to.”

The study was published on Feb. 3 in JAMA Surgery.

For the analysis, Dr. Dossett and her colleagues evaluated surgical data from the National Cancer Database. They examined data from more than 1,500 surgical facilities and from surgeries involving 920,256 women in the United States who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2016.

The team focused on four procedures that have been determined to be of low value by Choosing Wisely, a campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, on the basis of recommendations of the American College of Surgeons, the Society for Surgical Oncology, and the American Society for Breast Surgeons.

The results show that, for two of the four low-value procedures, use declined significantly over the study period. These two procedures were axillary lymph node dissection for limited nodal disease, for patients undergoing lumpectomy and radiotherapy, and lumpectomy re-excision for patients whose surgical margins were close but were negative for invasive cancer.

Axillary lymph node dissection declined from 63% in 2004 to 14% in 2016. The steepest reduction was seen soon after data from the Z0011 study were published in 2010. The rates for this procedure halved in the following year, from 62% in 2010 to 31% in 2011 (P < .001).

Likewise, reoperation rates after lumpectomy dropped from 19% in 2004 to 15% in 2016. The sharpest decline, from 18% in 2013 to 16% in 2014, corresponded to the publishing of the SSO/ASTRO consensus statement, which designated a negative margin as having “no tumor on ink.”

Two of the four low-value procedures increased in use during the study period.

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increased nearly 2.5-fold among women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing mastectomy, from 11% in 2004 to 26% in 2016, despite SSO guidelines issued in 2007 recommending that the procedure not be used for women at average risk.

In addition, rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy among women aged 70 years and older with clinically node-negative HR+ breast cancer increased from 78% in 2004 to 87% in 2012. There was no significant decline in the use of this procedure, even after the CALGB 9343 trial from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B showed no survival benefit in 2013.
 

Patterns at hospitals vary

The authors of the study also examined hospital factors, which can heavily influence choice of procedure.

These results showed that the greatest reductions of the low-value breast cancer procedures occurred at academic research programs and high-volume surgical facilities. Elsewhere, the rates varied widely.

Interfacility rates of axillary lymph node dissection ranged from 7% to 47%; lumpectomy reoperation rates ranged from 3% to 62%; contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates ranged from 9% to 67%; and sentinel lymph node biopsy rates ranged from 25% to 97%.

Being an outlier for use of one procedure did not necessarily translate to nonconformity for others. Factors such as a hospital’s volume of breast cancer cases or the type of facility did not appear to influence rates of axillary lymph node dissection or lumpectomy reoperation.

However, the rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were significantly higher in high-volume centers and integrated network cancer programs, compared with community cancer programs (23% vs. 2%; P < .001).

Dr. Dossett said the lack of consistency was somewhat unexpected.

“We expected we would find some facilities were constantly good or bad at deimplementation or that there would be stronger associations between certain facility characteristics and performance,” she said. “That really wasn’t the case, and most facilities had mixed performance.”
 

Evidence may or may not influence trends

The authors speculate on why the low-value designation is in some cases being ignored.

The evidence regarding the risk for lymphedema related to axillary lymph node dissection procedure appears to have helped reduce its use, they note.

However, surgeons have been much less convinced of benefits in omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy, either because they are unfamiliar with the recommendations to avoid the procedure, or they may feel the procedure adds only minimal time and risk to a patient’s operation, the authors explain.

Patients may be convinced to opt to omit sentinel lymph node biopsy if they are properly counseled regarding the risks and benefits of the procedure, Dr. Dossett commented.

Dr. Yao added that, for elderly patients, age can play an important role in sentinel node biopsy.

“Patients’ life expectancy has increased over the years, and node status may impact adjuvant therapy decisions for these patients, even chemotherapy decisions,” she said.

Pressure to continue to perform contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is believed to be significantly patient driven, Dr. Dossett noted.

“I ultimately think the best way to reduce contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is to encourage women with small cancers to undergo breast-conserving surgery, i.e., lumpectomy, instead of mastectomy,” she explained.

“Once the decision for mastectomy is made, there is often a great deal of momentum towards a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.”

“Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is a personal preference that many surgeons are willing to do for their patients,” Dr. Yao explained.

“Although no survival benefit has been demonstrated for this procedure, patients find many other benefits that have nothing to do with survival.”

The authors and Dr. Yao have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Of four surgical procedures for breast cancer that have been determined to be of low value because they yield no meaningful clinical benefit, two continue to be utilized. In fact, the use of two of these procedures has increased in the United States, new research shows.

“This is the first study to [evaluate] all four of the low-value breast cancer procedures at the same time and try to draw some conclusions on practice patterns across facilities,” said senior author Lesly A. Dossett, MD, MPH, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The two low-value procedures that have increased in use are contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral cancer and sentinel lymph node biopsy for clinically node-negative women aged 70 years and older with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) cancer.

“This suggests that formal efforts to reduce low value care through dissemination of guidelines, education of patients or providers, or alignment of incentives will be necessary to achieve full deimplementation,” she told this news organization.

The researchers emphasize that the providing of services that have no clinically meaningful benefit is a national epidemic, costing the United States more than $100 billion dollars annually.

These trends are notable and likely reflect a broad range of factors, commented Katharine Yao, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at the NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Ill.

“I think the better message here is not so much that facilities are doing too many low-value procedures but more that these procedures are still being performed, and the trends show increased rates over the years – why is that?”

“Perhaps there are other factors here we need to explore: why do these procedures persist, and why, despite the Choosing Wisely campaign, [do] they continue to increase?” she said in an interview. “Maybe there is something we can learn here about patient and physician preferences that perhaps we should be paying more attention to.”

The study was published on Feb. 3 in JAMA Surgery.

For the analysis, Dr. Dossett and her colleagues evaluated surgical data from the National Cancer Database. They examined data from more than 1,500 surgical facilities and from surgeries involving 920,256 women in the United States who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2016.

The team focused on four procedures that have been determined to be of low value by Choosing Wisely, a campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, on the basis of recommendations of the American College of Surgeons, the Society for Surgical Oncology, and the American Society for Breast Surgeons.

The results show that, for two of the four low-value procedures, use declined significantly over the study period. These two procedures were axillary lymph node dissection for limited nodal disease, for patients undergoing lumpectomy and radiotherapy, and lumpectomy re-excision for patients whose surgical margins were close but were negative for invasive cancer.

Axillary lymph node dissection declined from 63% in 2004 to 14% in 2016. The steepest reduction was seen soon after data from the Z0011 study were published in 2010. The rates for this procedure halved in the following year, from 62% in 2010 to 31% in 2011 (P < .001).

Likewise, reoperation rates after lumpectomy dropped from 19% in 2004 to 15% in 2016. The sharpest decline, from 18% in 2013 to 16% in 2014, corresponded to the publishing of the SSO/ASTRO consensus statement, which designated a negative margin as having “no tumor on ink.”

Two of the four low-value procedures increased in use during the study period.

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increased nearly 2.5-fold among women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing mastectomy, from 11% in 2004 to 26% in 2016, despite SSO guidelines issued in 2007 recommending that the procedure not be used for women at average risk.

In addition, rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy among women aged 70 years and older with clinically node-negative HR+ breast cancer increased from 78% in 2004 to 87% in 2012. There was no significant decline in the use of this procedure, even after the CALGB 9343 trial from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B showed no survival benefit in 2013.
 

Patterns at hospitals vary

The authors of the study also examined hospital factors, which can heavily influence choice of procedure.

These results showed that the greatest reductions of the low-value breast cancer procedures occurred at academic research programs and high-volume surgical facilities. Elsewhere, the rates varied widely.

Interfacility rates of axillary lymph node dissection ranged from 7% to 47%; lumpectomy reoperation rates ranged from 3% to 62%; contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates ranged from 9% to 67%; and sentinel lymph node biopsy rates ranged from 25% to 97%.

Being an outlier for use of one procedure did not necessarily translate to nonconformity for others. Factors such as a hospital’s volume of breast cancer cases or the type of facility did not appear to influence rates of axillary lymph node dissection or lumpectomy reoperation.

However, the rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were significantly higher in high-volume centers and integrated network cancer programs, compared with community cancer programs (23% vs. 2%; P < .001).

Dr. Dossett said the lack of consistency was somewhat unexpected.

“We expected we would find some facilities were constantly good or bad at deimplementation or that there would be stronger associations between certain facility characteristics and performance,” she said. “That really wasn’t the case, and most facilities had mixed performance.”
 

Evidence may or may not influence trends

The authors speculate on why the low-value designation is in some cases being ignored.

The evidence regarding the risk for lymphedema related to axillary lymph node dissection procedure appears to have helped reduce its use, they note.

However, surgeons have been much less convinced of benefits in omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy, either because they are unfamiliar with the recommendations to avoid the procedure, or they may feel the procedure adds only minimal time and risk to a patient’s operation, the authors explain.

Patients may be convinced to opt to omit sentinel lymph node biopsy if they are properly counseled regarding the risks and benefits of the procedure, Dr. Dossett commented.

Dr. Yao added that, for elderly patients, age can play an important role in sentinel node biopsy.

“Patients’ life expectancy has increased over the years, and node status may impact adjuvant therapy decisions for these patients, even chemotherapy decisions,” she said.

Pressure to continue to perform contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is believed to be significantly patient driven, Dr. Dossett noted.

“I ultimately think the best way to reduce contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is to encourage women with small cancers to undergo breast-conserving surgery, i.e., lumpectomy, instead of mastectomy,” she explained.

“Once the decision for mastectomy is made, there is often a great deal of momentum towards a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.”

“Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is a personal preference that many surgeons are willing to do for their patients,” Dr. Yao explained.

“Although no survival benefit has been demonstrated for this procedure, patients find many other benefits that have nothing to do with survival.”

The authors and Dr. Yao have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is planning to update its breast cancer screening guidelines, which were last issued in 2016. For transparency, it has released the draft research plan it will use for formulating the update, and this draft plan is open for comment until Feb. 17.

However, an expert in breast screening has taken issue with the whole plan.

Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and founder of the Breast Imaging Division at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, argues that previous USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening “have been based on flawed analyses of scientific data” and the research plan, as outlined, perpetuates this.

He has also objected, yet again, to the USPSTF panel not having any experts in breast screening on the panel.

Writing in a commentary on Aunt Minnie, a radiology website, he warns about the dangers of not listening to experts: “The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the tragic consequences that result from ignoring science, evidence, and the analysis and advice of experts while being guided by inexpert advice.”
 

Controversy over previous guidelines

The current USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening, which were issued in 2016, were largely unchanged from the previous guidelines that had been issued in 2009. They recommended mammography screening every 2 years for women 50-74 years of age but said that women aged 40-49 should make individual decisions about screening in partnership with their doctors.

The guidance on younger women was met with severe criticism from many experts, as previously reported by this news organization, and the every-2-year interval has also been questioned.

The American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging both recommend annual mammograms starting at age 40.

In the update the USPSTF is now planning, it has an opportunity to “revisit the group’s flawed decision in 2009” about not recommending screening for women in their 40s, argues Dr. Kopans.  

But to do that, a number of factors need to be addressed to present a fair and impartial review of the science and evidence in favor of breast screening, he continues, while worrying the draft plan, as currently outlined, will not do so.

One big problem, he argues, is that USPSTF, in its draft plan, has not included statistical models from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network to project the potential outcomes of various screening protocols. These NCI/CISNET models all predict that the most lives are saved by annual screening starting at age 40, he points out.

Without these models, the USPSTF will be “guessing in their predictions,” he argues.

Second, even though a reduction in advanced-stage disease is a potentially useful “surrogate endpoint,” Dr. Kopans points out that it is still crucial to remember that women diagnosed at all stages of breast cancer die of the disease. “It has been shown that reducing the size of cancers within stages is also a major benefit from screening that reduces deaths,” he says.

Third, he contends in his commentary that there is a “false claim that the background incidence of breast cancer has not increased over time.” Dr. Kopans says this has been the primary source of misinformation that has been used to promote “the false concepts of massive overdiagnosis” as well as a “false claim that there has not been a reduction in advanced cancers.”

To emphasize his point, Dr. Kopans explains that data clearly demonstrate that the baseline incidence of breast cancer has steadily risen by 1%-1.3% per year, going back at least 80 years. This increase predates screening, which didn’t really begin until the mid-1980s.

“If the correct increasing baseline is used, not only is there no apparent ‘overdiagnosis’ of invasive cancers, but it appears that there has been a major reduction in the incidence of invasive cancers,” he writes. “By using the correct baseline incidence and extrapolation, it is also clear that there has been a major reduction in the rate of advanced cancers.”

To date, there have not been any randomized controlled trials comparing screening intervals (for example, annual vs. every second or third year). But based on the CISNET models, Dr. Kopans emphasized that annual screening is estimated to provide the greatest reduction in deaths. “All women ages 40-74 should be encouraged to be screened every year,” he says.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is planning to update its breast cancer screening guidelines, which were last issued in 2016. For transparency, it has released the draft research plan it will use for formulating the update, and this draft plan is open for comment until Feb. 17.

However, an expert in breast screening has taken issue with the whole plan.

Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and founder of the Breast Imaging Division at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, argues that previous USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening “have been based on flawed analyses of scientific data” and the research plan, as outlined, perpetuates this.

He has also objected, yet again, to the USPSTF panel not having any experts in breast screening on the panel.

Writing in a commentary on Aunt Minnie, a radiology website, he warns about the dangers of not listening to experts: “The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the tragic consequences that result from ignoring science, evidence, and the analysis and advice of experts while being guided by inexpert advice.”
 

Controversy over previous guidelines

The current USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening, which were issued in 2016, were largely unchanged from the previous guidelines that had been issued in 2009. They recommended mammography screening every 2 years for women 50-74 years of age but said that women aged 40-49 should make individual decisions about screening in partnership with their doctors.

The guidance on younger women was met with severe criticism from many experts, as previously reported by this news organization, and the every-2-year interval has also been questioned.

The American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging both recommend annual mammograms starting at age 40.

In the update the USPSTF is now planning, it has an opportunity to “revisit the group’s flawed decision in 2009” about not recommending screening for women in their 40s, argues Dr. Kopans.  

But to do that, a number of factors need to be addressed to present a fair and impartial review of the science and evidence in favor of breast screening, he continues, while worrying the draft plan, as currently outlined, will not do so.

One big problem, he argues, is that USPSTF, in its draft plan, has not included statistical models from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network to project the potential outcomes of various screening protocols. These NCI/CISNET models all predict that the most lives are saved by annual screening starting at age 40, he points out.

Without these models, the USPSTF will be “guessing in their predictions,” he argues.

Second, even though a reduction in advanced-stage disease is a potentially useful “surrogate endpoint,” Dr. Kopans points out that it is still crucial to remember that women diagnosed at all stages of breast cancer die of the disease. “It has been shown that reducing the size of cancers within stages is also a major benefit from screening that reduces deaths,” he says.

Third, he contends in his commentary that there is a “false claim that the background incidence of breast cancer has not increased over time.” Dr. Kopans says this has been the primary source of misinformation that has been used to promote “the false concepts of massive overdiagnosis” as well as a “false claim that there has not been a reduction in advanced cancers.”

To emphasize his point, Dr. Kopans explains that data clearly demonstrate that the baseline incidence of breast cancer has steadily risen by 1%-1.3% per year, going back at least 80 years. This increase predates screening, which didn’t really begin until the mid-1980s.

“If the correct increasing baseline is used, not only is there no apparent ‘overdiagnosis’ of invasive cancers, but it appears that there has been a major reduction in the incidence of invasive cancers,” he writes. “By using the correct baseline incidence and extrapolation, it is also clear that there has been a major reduction in the rate of advanced cancers.”

To date, there have not been any randomized controlled trials comparing screening intervals (for example, annual vs. every second or third year). But based on the CISNET models, Dr. Kopans emphasized that annual screening is estimated to provide the greatest reduction in deaths. “All women ages 40-74 should be encouraged to be screened every year,” he says.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is planning to update its breast cancer screening guidelines, which were last issued in 2016. For transparency, it has released the draft research plan it will use for formulating the update, and this draft plan is open for comment until Feb. 17.

However, an expert in breast screening has taken issue with the whole plan.

Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and founder of the Breast Imaging Division at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, argues that previous USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening “have been based on flawed analyses of scientific data” and the research plan, as outlined, perpetuates this.

He has also objected, yet again, to the USPSTF panel not having any experts in breast screening on the panel.

Writing in a commentary on Aunt Minnie, a radiology website, he warns about the dangers of not listening to experts: “The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the tragic consequences that result from ignoring science, evidence, and the analysis and advice of experts while being guided by inexpert advice.”
 

Controversy over previous guidelines

The current USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening, which were issued in 2016, were largely unchanged from the previous guidelines that had been issued in 2009. They recommended mammography screening every 2 years for women 50-74 years of age but said that women aged 40-49 should make individual decisions about screening in partnership with their doctors.

The guidance on younger women was met with severe criticism from many experts, as previously reported by this news organization, and the every-2-year interval has also been questioned.

The American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging both recommend annual mammograms starting at age 40.

In the update the USPSTF is now planning, it has an opportunity to “revisit the group’s flawed decision in 2009” about not recommending screening for women in their 40s, argues Dr. Kopans.  

But to do that, a number of factors need to be addressed to present a fair and impartial review of the science and evidence in favor of breast screening, he continues, while worrying the draft plan, as currently outlined, will not do so.

One big problem, he argues, is that USPSTF, in its draft plan, has not included statistical models from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network to project the potential outcomes of various screening protocols. These NCI/CISNET models all predict that the most lives are saved by annual screening starting at age 40, he points out.

Without these models, the USPSTF will be “guessing in their predictions,” he argues.

Second, even though a reduction in advanced-stage disease is a potentially useful “surrogate endpoint,” Dr. Kopans points out that it is still crucial to remember that women diagnosed at all stages of breast cancer die of the disease. “It has been shown that reducing the size of cancers within stages is also a major benefit from screening that reduces deaths,” he says.

Third, he contends in his commentary that there is a “false claim that the background incidence of breast cancer has not increased over time.” Dr. Kopans says this has been the primary source of misinformation that has been used to promote “the false concepts of massive overdiagnosis” as well as a “false claim that there has not been a reduction in advanced cancers.”

To emphasize his point, Dr. Kopans explains that data clearly demonstrate that the baseline incidence of breast cancer has steadily risen by 1%-1.3% per year, going back at least 80 years. This increase predates screening, which didn’t really begin until the mid-1980s.

“If the correct increasing baseline is used, not only is there no apparent ‘overdiagnosis’ of invasive cancers, but it appears that there has been a major reduction in the incidence of invasive cancers,” he writes. “By using the correct baseline incidence and extrapolation, it is also clear that there has been a major reduction in the rate of advanced cancers.”

To date, there have not been any randomized controlled trials comparing screening intervals (for example, annual vs. every second or third year). But based on the CISNET models, Dr. Kopans emphasized that annual screening is estimated to provide the greatest reduction in deaths. “All women ages 40-74 should be encouraged to be screened every year,” he says.

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

A new approach to breast screening proposes that all women should have a baseline evaluation of breast density by mammography at the age of 40.

The result would then be used to stratify further screening, with annual screening starting at age 40 for average-risk women who have dense breasts, and screening every 2 years starting at age 50 for women without dense breasts.

Such an approach would be cost effective and offers a more targeted risk-based strategy for the early detection of breast cancer when compared with current practices, say the authors, led by Tina Shih, PhD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Their modeling study was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, experts writing in an accompanying editorial are not persuaded. Karla Kerlikowske, MD, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, both from the University of California, San Francisco, point out that not all women with dense breasts are at increased risk for breast cancer. They caution against relying on breast density alone when determining screening strategies, and say age and other risk factors also need to be considered.
 

New approach proposed

Current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force suggest that women in their 40s can choose to undergo screening mammography based on their own personal preference, Dr. Shih explained in an interview.

However, these recommendations do not take into consideration the additional risk that breast density confers on breast cancer risk – and the only way women can know their breast density is to have a mammogram. “If you follow [current] guidelines, you would not know about your breast density until the age of 45 or 50,” she commented.

“But what if you knew about breast density earlier on and then acted on it –would that make a difference?” This was the question her team set out to explore.

For their study, the authors defined women with dense breasts as those with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category C (heterogeneously dense breasts) and category D (extremely dense breasts).

The team used a computer model to compare seven different breast screening strategies:

• No screening.
• Triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (T50).
• Biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and triennial. screening from age 50 to 75 for women without dense breasts at the age of 50 (SA50T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and biennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breast at age 50 (SA50B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 49, and triennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 40, and biennial mammography for women from age 50 to 75 without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40B50).

Compared with a no-screening strategy, the average number of mammography sessions through a woman’s lifetime would increase from seven mammograms per lifetime for the least frequent screening (T50) to 22 mammograms per lifetime for the most intensive screening schedule, the team reports.  

Compared with no screening, screening would reduce breast cancer deaths by 8.6 per 1,000 women (T50)–13.2 per 1,000 women (SA40B50).

A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the proposed new approach (SA40B50) yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), compared with the currently recommended biennial screening strategy. This is well within the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY that is generally accepted by society, the authors point out.

On the other hand, false-positive results and overdiagnosis would increase, the authors note.

The average number of false positives would increase from 141.2 per 1,000 women who underwent the least frequent triennial mammography screening schedule (T50) to 567.3 per 1,000 women with the new approach (SA40B50).  

Rates of overdiagnosis would also increase from a low of 12.5% to a high of 18.6%, they add.

“With this study, we are not saying that everybody should start screening at the age of 40. We’re just saying, do a baseline mammography at 40, know your breast density status, and then we can try to modify the screening schedule based on individual risk,” Dr. Shih emphasized.

“Compared with other screening strategies examined in our study, this strategy is associated with the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality and is cost effective, [although it] involves the most screening mammograms in a woman’s lifetime and higher rates of false-positive results and overdiagnosis,” the authors conclude.  
 

Fundamental problem with this approach 

The fundamental problem with this approach of stratifying risk on measurement of breast density – and on the basis of a single reading – is that not every woman with dense breasts is at increased risk for breast cancer, the editorialists comment.

Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo point out that, in fact, only about one-quarter of women with dense breasts are at high risk for a missed invasive cancer within 1 year of a negative mammogram, and these women can be identified by using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model.

“This observation means that most women with dense breasts can undergo biennial screening and need not consider annual screening or supplemental imaging,” the editorialists write.

“Thus, we caution against using breast density alone to determine if a woman is at elevated risk for breast cancer,” they emphasize.

An alternative option is to focus on overall risk to select screening strategies, they suggest. For example, most guidelines recommend screening from age 50 to 74, so identifying women in their 40s who have the same risk of a woman aged 50-59 is one way to determine who may benefit from earlier initiation of screening, the editorialists observe.

“Thus, women who have a first-degree relative with breast cancer or a history of breast biopsy could be offered screening in their 40s, and, if mammography shows dense breasts, they could continue biennial screening through their 40s,” the editorialists observe. “Such women with nondense breasts could resume biennial screening at age 50 years.”  

Dr. Shih told this news organization that she did not disagree with the editorialists’ suggestion that physicians could focus on overall breast cancer risk to select an appropriate screening strategy for individual patients.

“What we are suggesting is, ‘Let’s just do a baseline assessment at the age of 40 so women know their breast density instead of waiting until they are older,’ “ she said.

“But what the editorialists are suggesting is a strategy that could be even more cost effective,” she acknowledged. Dr. Shih also said that Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo’s estimate that only one-quarter of women with dense breasts are actually at high risk for breast cancer likely reflects their limitation of breast density to only those women with BI-RADs category “D” – extremely dense breasts.

Yet as Dr. Shih notes, women with category C and category D breast densities are both at higher risk for breast cancer, so ignoring women with lesser degrees of breast density still doesn’t address the fact that they have a higher-than-average risk for breast cancer.

“It’s getting harder to make universal screening strategies work as we are learning more and more about breast cancer, so people are starting to talk about screening strategies based on a patient’s risk classification,” Dr. Shih noted.

“It’ll be harder to implement these kinds of strategies, but it seems like the right way to go,” she added.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shih reports grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerlikowske is an unpaid consultant for GRAIL for the STRIVE study. Dr. Bibbins-Domingo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new approach to breast screening proposes that all women should have a baseline evaluation of breast density by mammography at the age of 40.

The result would then be used to stratify further screening, with annual screening starting at age 40 for average-risk women who have dense breasts, and screening every 2 years starting at age 50 for women without dense breasts.

Such an approach would be cost effective and offers a more targeted risk-based strategy for the early detection of breast cancer when compared with current practices, say the authors, led by Tina Shih, PhD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Their modeling study was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, experts writing in an accompanying editorial are not persuaded. Karla Kerlikowske, MD, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, both from the University of California, San Francisco, point out that not all women with dense breasts are at increased risk for breast cancer. They caution against relying on breast density alone when determining screening strategies, and say age and other risk factors also need to be considered.
 

New approach proposed

Current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force suggest that women in their 40s can choose to undergo screening mammography based on their own personal preference, Dr. Shih explained in an interview.

However, these recommendations do not take into consideration the additional risk that breast density confers on breast cancer risk – and the only way women can know their breast density is to have a mammogram. “If you follow [current] guidelines, you would not know about your breast density until the age of 45 or 50,” she commented.

“But what if you knew about breast density earlier on and then acted on it –would that make a difference?” This was the question her team set out to explore.

For their study, the authors defined women with dense breasts as those with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category C (heterogeneously dense breasts) and category D (extremely dense breasts).

The team used a computer model to compare seven different breast screening strategies:

• No screening.
• Triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (T50).
• Biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and triennial. screening from age 50 to 75 for women without dense breasts at the age of 50 (SA50T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and biennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breast at age 50 (SA50B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 49, and triennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 40, and biennial mammography for women from age 50 to 75 without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40B50).

Compared with a no-screening strategy, the average number of mammography sessions through a woman’s lifetime would increase from seven mammograms per lifetime for the least frequent screening (T50) to 22 mammograms per lifetime for the most intensive screening schedule, the team reports.  

Compared with no screening, screening would reduce breast cancer deaths by 8.6 per 1,000 women (T50)–13.2 per 1,000 women (SA40B50).

A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the proposed new approach (SA40B50) yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), compared with the currently recommended biennial screening strategy. This is well within the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY that is generally accepted by society, the authors point out.

On the other hand, false-positive results and overdiagnosis would increase, the authors note.

The average number of false positives would increase from 141.2 per 1,000 women who underwent the least frequent triennial mammography screening schedule (T50) to 567.3 per 1,000 women with the new approach (SA40B50).  

Rates of overdiagnosis would also increase from a low of 12.5% to a high of 18.6%, they add.

“With this study, we are not saying that everybody should start screening at the age of 40. We’re just saying, do a baseline mammography at 40, know your breast density status, and then we can try to modify the screening schedule based on individual risk,” Dr. Shih emphasized.

“Compared with other screening strategies examined in our study, this strategy is associated with the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality and is cost effective, [although it] involves the most screening mammograms in a woman’s lifetime and higher rates of false-positive results and overdiagnosis,” the authors conclude.  
 

Fundamental problem with this approach 

The fundamental problem with this approach of stratifying risk on measurement of breast density – and on the basis of a single reading – is that not every woman with dense breasts is at increased risk for breast cancer, the editorialists comment.

Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo point out that, in fact, only about one-quarter of women with dense breasts are at high risk for a missed invasive cancer within 1 year of a negative mammogram, and these women can be identified by using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model.

“This observation means that most women with dense breasts can undergo biennial screening and need not consider annual screening or supplemental imaging,” the editorialists write.

“Thus, we caution against using breast density alone to determine if a woman is at elevated risk for breast cancer,” they emphasize.

An alternative option is to focus on overall risk to select screening strategies, they suggest. For example, most guidelines recommend screening from age 50 to 74, so identifying women in their 40s who have the same risk of a woman aged 50-59 is one way to determine who may benefit from earlier initiation of screening, the editorialists observe.

“Thus, women who have a first-degree relative with breast cancer or a history of breast biopsy could be offered screening in their 40s, and, if mammography shows dense breasts, they could continue biennial screening through their 40s,” the editorialists observe. “Such women with nondense breasts could resume biennial screening at age 50 years.”  

Dr. Shih told this news organization that she did not disagree with the editorialists’ suggestion that physicians could focus on overall breast cancer risk to select an appropriate screening strategy for individual patients.

“What we are suggesting is, ‘Let’s just do a baseline assessment at the age of 40 so women know their breast density instead of waiting until they are older,’ “ she said.

“But what the editorialists are suggesting is a strategy that could be even more cost effective,” she acknowledged. Dr. Shih also said that Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo’s estimate that only one-quarter of women with dense breasts are actually at high risk for breast cancer likely reflects their limitation of breast density to only those women with BI-RADs category “D” – extremely dense breasts.

Yet as Dr. Shih notes, women with category C and category D breast densities are both at higher risk for breast cancer, so ignoring women with lesser degrees of breast density still doesn’t address the fact that they have a higher-than-average risk for breast cancer.

“It’s getting harder to make universal screening strategies work as we are learning more and more about breast cancer, so people are starting to talk about screening strategies based on a patient’s risk classification,” Dr. Shih noted.

“It’ll be harder to implement these kinds of strategies, but it seems like the right way to go,” she added.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shih reports grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerlikowske is an unpaid consultant for GRAIL for the STRIVE study. Dr. Bibbins-Domingo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new approach to breast screening proposes that all women should have a baseline evaluation of breast density by mammography at the age of 40.

The result would then be used to stratify further screening, with annual screening starting at age 40 for average-risk women who have dense breasts, and screening every 2 years starting at age 50 for women without dense breasts.

Such an approach would be cost effective and offers a more targeted risk-based strategy for the early detection of breast cancer when compared with current practices, say the authors, led by Tina Shih, PhD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Their modeling study was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, experts writing in an accompanying editorial are not persuaded. Karla Kerlikowske, MD, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, both from the University of California, San Francisco, point out that not all women with dense breasts are at increased risk for breast cancer. They caution against relying on breast density alone when determining screening strategies, and say age and other risk factors also need to be considered.
 

New approach proposed

Current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force suggest that women in their 40s can choose to undergo screening mammography based on their own personal preference, Dr. Shih explained in an interview.

However, these recommendations do not take into consideration the additional risk that breast density confers on breast cancer risk – and the only way women can know their breast density is to have a mammogram. “If you follow [current] guidelines, you would not know about your breast density until the age of 45 or 50,” she commented.

“But what if you knew about breast density earlier on and then acted on it –would that make a difference?” This was the question her team set out to explore.

For their study, the authors defined women with dense breasts as those with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category C (heterogeneously dense breasts) and category D (extremely dense breasts).

The team used a computer model to compare seven different breast screening strategies:

• No screening.
• Triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (T50).
• Biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and triennial. screening from age 50 to 75 for women without dense breasts at the age of 50 (SA50T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and biennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breast at age 50 (SA50B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 49, and triennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 40, and biennial mammography for women from age 50 to 75 without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40B50).

Compared with a no-screening strategy, the average number of mammography sessions through a woman’s lifetime would increase from seven mammograms per lifetime for the least frequent screening (T50) to 22 mammograms per lifetime for the most intensive screening schedule, the team reports.  

Compared with no screening, screening would reduce breast cancer deaths by 8.6 per 1,000 women (T50)–13.2 per 1,000 women (SA40B50).

A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the proposed new approach (SA40B50) yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), compared with the currently recommended biennial screening strategy. This is well within the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY that is generally accepted by society, the authors point out.

On the other hand, false-positive results and overdiagnosis would increase, the authors note.

The average number of false positives would increase from 141.2 per 1,000 women who underwent the least frequent triennial mammography screening schedule (T50) to 567.3 per 1,000 women with the new approach (SA40B50).  

Rates of overdiagnosis would also increase from a low of 12.5% to a high of 18.6%, they add.

“With this study, we are not saying that everybody should start screening at the age of 40. We’re just saying, do a baseline mammography at 40, know your breast density status, and then we can try to modify the screening schedule based on individual risk,” Dr. Shih emphasized.

“Compared with other screening strategies examined in our study, this strategy is associated with the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality and is cost effective, [although it] involves the most screening mammograms in a woman’s lifetime and higher rates of false-positive results and overdiagnosis,” the authors conclude.  
 

Fundamental problem with this approach 

The fundamental problem with this approach of stratifying risk on measurement of breast density – and on the basis of a single reading – is that not every woman with dense breasts is at increased risk for breast cancer, the editorialists comment.

Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo point out that, in fact, only about one-quarter of women with dense breasts are at high risk for a missed invasive cancer within 1 year of a negative mammogram, and these women can be identified by using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model.

“This observation means that most women with dense breasts can undergo biennial screening and need not consider annual screening or supplemental imaging,” the editorialists write.

“Thus, we caution against using breast density alone to determine if a woman is at elevated risk for breast cancer,” they emphasize.

An alternative option is to focus on overall risk to select screening strategies, they suggest. For example, most guidelines recommend screening from age 50 to 74, so identifying women in their 40s who have the same risk of a woman aged 50-59 is one way to determine who may benefit from earlier initiation of screening, the editorialists observe.

“Thus, women who have a first-degree relative with breast cancer or a history of breast biopsy could be offered screening in their 40s, and, if mammography shows dense breasts, they could continue biennial screening through their 40s,” the editorialists observe. “Such women with nondense breasts could resume biennial screening at age 50 years.”  

Dr. Shih told this news organization that she did not disagree with the editorialists’ suggestion that physicians could focus on overall breast cancer risk to select an appropriate screening strategy for individual patients.

“What we are suggesting is, ‘Let’s just do a baseline assessment at the age of 40 so women know their breast density instead of waiting until they are older,’ “ she said.

“But what the editorialists are suggesting is a strategy that could be even more cost effective,” she acknowledged. Dr. Shih also said that Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo’s estimate that only one-quarter of women with dense breasts are actually at high risk for breast cancer likely reflects their limitation of breast density to only those women with BI-RADs category “D” – extremely dense breasts.

Yet as Dr. Shih notes, women with category C and category D breast densities are both at higher risk for breast cancer, so ignoring women with lesser degrees of breast density still doesn’t address the fact that they have a higher-than-average risk for breast cancer.

“It’s getting harder to make universal screening strategies work as we are learning more and more about breast cancer, so people are starting to talk about screening strategies based on a patient’s risk classification,” Dr. Shih noted.

“It’ll be harder to implement these kinds of strategies, but it seems like the right way to go,” she added.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shih reports grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerlikowske is an unpaid consultant for GRAIL for the STRIVE study. Dr. Bibbins-Domingo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Key clinical point: Rates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in patients with early breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) are higher than that reported in TARGIT-A trial and with traditional whole-breast radiation therapy or other forms of partial breast irradiation.

Major finding: At 5 years, the absolute IBTR rate was 6.6% for the entire IORT-treated cohort. IBTR rate was 8% and 1.2% for patients who received primary IORT and unintentional IORT boost treatment, respectively. No recurrences were observed in the delayed IORT or intentional-boost IORT cohorts.

Study details: Findings from an updated analysis of TARGIT-R with a 5-year follow-up assessment in 667 patients with early-stage breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy and IORT.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The lead author did not report any conflicts of interest, but some co-investigators reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Valente SA et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan 12. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-09432-3.

Key clinical point: Rates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in patients with early breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) are higher than that reported in TARGIT-A trial and with traditional whole-breast radiation therapy or other forms of partial breast irradiation.

Major finding: At 5 years, the absolute IBTR rate was 6.6% for the entire IORT-treated cohort. IBTR rate was 8% and 1.2% for patients who received primary IORT and unintentional IORT boost treatment, respectively. No recurrences were observed in the delayed IORT or intentional-boost IORT cohorts.

Study details: Findings from an updated analysis of TARGIT-R with a 5-year follow-up assessment in 667 patients with early-stage breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy and IORT.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The lead author did not report any conflicts of interest, but some co-investigators reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Valente SA et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan 12. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-09432-3.

Key clinical point: Rates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in patients with early breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) are higher than that reported in TARGIT-A trial and with traditional whole-breast radiation therapy or other forms of partial breast irradiation.

Major finding: At 5 years, the absolute IBTR rate was 6.6% for the entire IORT-treated cohort. IBTR rate was 8% and 1.2% for patients who received primary IORT and unintentional IORT boost treatment, respectively. No recurrences were observed in the delayed IORT or intentional-boost IORT cohorts.

Study details: Findings from an updated analysis of TARGIT-R with a 5-year follow-up assessment in 667 patients with early-stage breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy and IORT.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The lead author did not report any conflicts of interest, but some co-investigators reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Valente SA et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan 12. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-09432-3.

Key clinical point: Low-dose capecitabine maintenance therapy for 1 year after standard adjuvant chemotherapy resulted in significantly better disease-free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) in women with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: Capecitabine vs. observation group had significantly higher estimated 5-year DFS (82.8% vs. 73%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .03) and distant DFS (85.8% vs. 75.8%; HR, 0.60; P = .02) but not OS (85.5% vs. 81.3%; HR, 0.75; P = .22). Hand-foot syndrome (45.2%) was the most common adverse event in the capecitabine group, with 7.7% of patients experiencing grade 3 event.

Study details: Phase 3 SYSUCC-001 trial randomly allocated 434 women with early TNBC to receive either low-dose capecitabine maintenance (n=221) or undergo observation (n=213) within 4 weeks after completion of standard adjuvant chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sun Yat-sen University, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The study investigators did not report any conflict of interest.

Source: Wang X et al. JAMA. 2021 Jan 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.23370.

Key clinical point: Low-dose capecitabine maintenance therapy for 1 year after standard adjuvant chemotherapy resulted in significantly better disease-free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) in women with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: Capecitabine vs. observation group had significantly higher estimated 5-year DFS (82.8% vs. 73%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .03) and distant DFS (85.8% vs. 75.8%; HR, 0.60; P = .02) but not OS (85.5% vs. 81.3%; HR, 0.75; P = .22). Hand-foot syndrome (45.2%) was the most common adverse event in the capecitabine group, with 7.7% of patients experiencing grade 3 event.

Study details: Phase 3 SYSUCC-001 trial randomly allocated 434 women with early TNBC to receive either low-dose capecitabine maintenance (n=221) or undergo observation (n=213) within 4 weeks after completion of standard adjuvant chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sun Yat-sen University, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The study investigators did not report any conflict of interest.

Source: Wang X et al. JAMA. 2021 Jan 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.23370.

Key clinical point: Low-dose capecitabine maintenance therapy for 1 year after standard adjuvant chemotherapy resulted in significantly better disease-free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) in women with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: Capecitabine vs. observation group had significantly higher estimated 5-year DFS (82.8% vs. 73%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .03) and distant DFS (85.8% vs. 75.8%; HR, 0.60; P = .02) but not OS (85.5% vs. 81.3%; HR, 0.75; P = .22). Hand-foot syndrome (45.2%) was the most common adverse event in the capecitabine group, with 7.7% of patients experiencing grade 3 event.

Study details: Phase 3 SYSUCC-001 trial randomly allocated 434 women with early TNBC to receive either low-dose capecitabine maintenance (n=221) or undergo observation (n=213) within 4 weeks after completion of standard adjuvant chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sun Yat-sen University, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The study investigators did not report any conflict of interest.

Source: Wang X et al. JAMA. 2021 Jan 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.23370.