Breast Cancer

Updated option for breast biopsy

Hologic announces updates to its Brevera^® Breast Biopsy System with CorLumina^® Imaging Technology. The Brevera system is designed for use with the manufacturer’s Affirm^® Prone biopsy guidance system. 

For more information, visit https://www.hologic.com.

“Mini-sponge” device shows potential to treat PPH

During a pilot study, reports Obstetrx, 9 patients, treated at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia, did not respond to conventional PPH management options after vaginal birth but did respond, with bleeding resolved in 60 seconds and no adverse events, to the XSTAT device. The device was left in place for a mean time of 1 hour, and none of the patients required further surgical procedures or blood transfusions. The initial placement time of XSTAT (mean time to placement, 62 seconds) was faster than times reported for balloon uterine tamponade devices. The pilot study results were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

XSTAT is US Food and Drug Administration–approved to treat high-flow arterial bleeding in prehospital trauma settings, and Obstetrx is planning to submit for 510k clearance in 2022, after the conclusion of a follow-up PPH trial in 2021.

For more information, visit: https://www.obstetrx.com/.

Continue to: AI and ovulation prediction...

 

 

AI and ovulation prediction

A woman’s fertility window is typically the 5 days leading up to ovulation, with peak fertility in the 2 to 3 days before ovulation. There are other options for measuring that fertile window, including luteinizing hormone (LH) tests; however, Prima-Temp reports that Priya predicts the fertile window an average of 2.6 days before tests for LH. Utilizing continuous core body temperature measurement, Priya detects subtle changes in temperature patterns that occur prior to ovulation. The app portion of the technology stores and analyzes the temperature measurements, for a high-tech fertility alert system that also offers clinical diagnostic support. Potential users of the Priya system are able to sign up to receive it through the product’s website.

For more information, visit: https://www.priyafertility.com.

Updated option for breast biopsy

Hologic announces updates to its Brevera^® Breast Biopsy System with CorLumina^® Imaging Technology. The Brevera system is designed for use with the manufacturer’s Affirm^® Prone biopsy guidance system. 

For more information, visit https://www.hologic.com.

“Mini-sponge” device shows potential to treat PPH

During a pilot study, reports Obstetrx, 9 patients, treated at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia, did not respond to conventional PPH management options after vaginal birth but did respond, with bleeding resolved in 60 seconds and no adverse events, to the XSTAT device. The device was left in place for a mean time of 1 hour, and none of the patients required further surgical procedures or blood transfusions. The initial placement time of XSTAT (mean time to placement, 62 seconds) was faster than times reported for balloon uterine tamponade devices. The pilot study results were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

XSTAT is US Food and Drug Administration–approved to treat high-flow arterial bleeding in prehospital trauma settings, and Obstetrx is planning to submit for 510k clearance in 2022, after the conclusion of a follow-up PPH trial in 2021.

For more information, visit: https://www.obstetrx.com/.

Continue to: AI and ovulation prediction...

 

 

AI and ovulation prediction

A woman’s fertility window is typically the 5 days leading up to ovulation, with peak fertility in the 2 to 3 days before ovulation. There are other options for measuring that fertile window, including luteinizing hormone (LH) tests; however, Prima-Temp reports that Priya predicts the fertile window an average of 2.6 days before tests for LH. Utilizing continuous core body temperature measurement, Priya detects subtle changes in temperature patterns that occur prior to ovulation. The app portion of the technology stores and analyzes the temperature measurements, for a high-tech fertility alert system that also offers clinical diagnostic support. Potential users of the Priya system are able to sign up to receive it through the product’s website.

For more information, visit: https://www.priyafertility.com.

Updated option for breast biopsy

Hologic announces updates to its Brevera^® Breast Biopsy System with CorLumina^® Imaging Technology. The Brevera system is designed for use with the manufacturer’s Affirm^® Prone biopsy guidance system. 

For more information, visit https://www.hologic.com.

“Mini-sponge” device shows potential to treat PPH

During a pilot study, reports Obstetrx, 9 patients, treated at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia, did not respond to conventional PPH management options after vaginal birth but did respond, with bleeding resolved in 60 seconds and no adverse events, to the XSTAT device. The device was left in place for a mean time of 1 hour, and none of the patients required further surgical procedures or blood transfusions. The initial placement time of XSTAT (mean time to placement, 62 seconds) was faster than times reported for balloon uterine tamponade devices. The pilot study results were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

XSTAT is US Food and Drug Administration–approved to treat high-flow arterial bleeding in prehospital trauma settings, and Obstetrx is planning to submit for 510k clearance in 2022, after the conclusion of a follow-up PPH trial in 2021.

For more information, visit: https://www.obstetrx.com/.

Continue to: AI and ovulation prediction...

 

 

AI and ovulation prediction

A woman’s fertility window is typically the 5 days leading up to ovulation, with peak fertility in the 2 to 3 days before ovulation. There are other options for measuring that fertile window, including luteinizing hormone (LH) tests; however, Prima-Temp reports that Priya predicts the fertile window an average of 2.6 days before tests for LH. Utilizing continuous core body temperature measurement, Priya detects subtle changes in temperature patterns that occur prior to ovulation. The app portion of the technology stores and analyzes the temperature measurements, for a high-tech fertility alert system that also offers clinical diagnostic support. Potential users of the Priya system are able to sign up to receive it through the product’s website.

For more information, visit: https://www.priyafertility.com.

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of low-dose aspirin among older people shows no effect in reducing the incidence of certain cancer types. However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.

“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open. 

“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.

In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.

“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.

“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
 

Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking

With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.

However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.

To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.

The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.

Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.

The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.

However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.

A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.

“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
 

Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway

Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.  

In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.

“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.

The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.

Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.

“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”

Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.

“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”

The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of low-dose aspirin among older people shows no effect in reducing the incidence of certain cancer types. However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.

“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open. 

“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.

In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.

“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.

“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
 

Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking

With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.

However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.

To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.

The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.

Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.

The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.

However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.

A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.

“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
 

Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway

Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.  

In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.

“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.

The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.

Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.

“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”

Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.

“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”

The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of low-dose aspirin among older people shows no effect in reducing the incidence of certain cancer types. However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.

“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open. 

“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.

In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.

“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.

“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
 

Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking

With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.

However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.

To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.

The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.

Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.

The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.

However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.

A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.

“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
 

Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway

Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.  

In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.

“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.

The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.

Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.

“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”

Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.

“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”

The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New findings of breast cancer gene mutations in women who have no family history of the disease offer a new way of estimating risk and may change the way in which these women are advised on risk management.

The findings come from two large studies, both published on Jan. 20 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The two articles are “extraordinary” for broadening and validating the genomic panel to help screen women at risk for breast cancer in the future, commented Eric Topol, MD, professor of molecular medicine, Scripps Research, La Jolla, Calif., and Medscape editor in chief.

“Traditionally, genetic testing of inherited breast cancer genes has focused on women at high risk who have a strong family history of breast cancer or those who were diagnosed at an early age, such as under 45 years,” commented the lead investigator of one of the studies, Fergus Couch, PhD, a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“[Although] the risk of developing breast cancer is generally lower for women without a family history of the disease ... when we looked at all women, we found that 30% of breast cancer mutations occurred in women who are not high risk,” he said.

In both studies, mutations or variants in eight genes – BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, ATM, and CHEK2 – were found to be significantly associated with breast cancer risk.

However, the distribution of mutations among women with breast cancer differed from the distribution among unaffected women, noted Steven Narod, MD, from the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

“What this means to clinicians, now that we are expanding the use of gene-panel testing to include unaffected women with a moderate risk of breast cancer in the family history, is that our time will increasingly be spent counseling women with CHEK2 and ATM mutations,” he wrote. Currently, these two are “clumped in with ‘other genes.’ ... Most of the pretest discussion is currently focused on the implications of finding a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.”

The new findings may lead to new risk management strategies, he suggested. “Most breast cancers that occur in women with a mutation in ATM or CHEK2 are estrogen receptor positive, so these women may be candidates for antiestrogen therapies such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors,” he wrote.

Dr. Narod observed that, for now, the management of most women with either mutation will consist of screening alone, starting with MRI at age 40 years.

The medical community is not ready yet to expand genetic screening to the general population, cautions Walton Taylor, MD, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

The ASBrS currently recommends that all patients with breast cancer as well as those at high risk for breast cancer be offered genetic testing. “All women at risk should be tested, and all patients with pathogenic variants need to be managed appropriately – it saves lives,” Dr. Taylor emphasized.

However, “unaffected people with no family history do not need genetic testing at this time,” he said in an interview.

As to what physicians might do to better manage patients with mutations that predispose to breast cancer, Dr. Taylor said, “It’s surprisingly easy.”

Every genetic testing company provides genetic counselors to guide patients through next steps, Dr. Taylor pointed out, and most cancer patients have nurse navigators who make sure patients get tested and followed appropriately.

Members of the ASBrS follow the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines when they identify carriers of a pathogenic variant. Dr. Taylor said these are very useful guidelines for virtually all mutations identified thus far.

“This research is not necessarily new, but it is confirmatory for what we are doing, and that helps us make sure we are going down the right pathway,” Dr. Taylor said. “It confirms that what we think is right is right – and that matters,.”
 

CARRIERS consortium findings

The study led by Dr. Couch was carried out by the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. It involved analyzing data from 17 epidemiology studies that focused on women in the general population who develop breast cancer. For the studies, which were conducted in the United States, pathogenic variants in 28 cancer-predisposition genes were sequenced from 32,247 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 32,544 unaffected women (control persons).

In the overall CARRIERS analysis, the prevalence of pathogenic variants in 12 clinically actionable genes was 5.03% among case patients and 1.63% among control persons. The prevalence was similar in non-Hispanic White women, non-Hispanic Black women, and Hispanic case patients, as well as control persons, they added. The prevalence of pathogenic variants among Asian American case patients was lower, at only 1.64%.

Among patients who had breast cancer, the most common pathogenic variants included BRCA2, which occurred in 1.29% of case patients, followed by CHEK2, at a prevalence of 1.08%, and BRCA1, at a prevalence of 0.85%.

Mutations in BRCA1 increased the risk for breast cancer more than 7.5-fold; mutations in BRCA2 increased that risk more than fivefold, the investigators stated.

Mutations in PALB2 increased the risk of breast cancer approximately fourfold, they added.

Prevalence rates for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 among breast cancer patients declined rapidly after the age of 40. The decline in other variants, including ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, was limited with increasing age.

Indeed, mutations in all five of these genes were associated with a lifetime absolute risk for breast cancer greater than 20% by the age of 85 years among non-Hispanic Whites.

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 yielded a lifetime risk for breast cancer of approximately 50%. Mutations in PALB2 yielded a lifetime breast cancer risk of approximately 32%.

The risk of having a mutation in specific genes varied depending on the type of breast cancer. For example, mutations in BARD1, RAD51C, and RAD51D increased the risk for estrogen receptor (ER)–negative breast cancer as well as triple-negative breast cancer, the authors noted, whereas mutations in ATM, CDH1, and CHEK2 increased the risk for ER-positive breast cancer.

“These refined estimates of the prevalences of pathogenic variants among women with breast cancer in the overall population, as opposed to selected high-risk patients, may inform ongoing discussions regarding testing in patients with breast cancer,” the CARRIERS authors observed.

“The risks of breast cancer associated with pathogenic variants in the genes evaluated in the population-based CARRIERS analysis also provide important information for risk assessment and counseling of women with breast cancer who do not meet high-risk selection criteria,” they suggested.
 

Similar findings in second study

The second study was conducted by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium under lead author Leila Dorling, PhD, University of Cambridge (England). This group sequenced 34 susceptibility genes from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 unaffected control persons.

“Protein-truncating variants in five genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a significant risk of breast cancer overall (P < .0001),” the BCAC members reported. “For these genes, odds ratios ranged from 2.10 to 10.57.”

The association between overall breast cancer risk and mutations in seven other genes was more modest, conferring approximately twice the risk for breast cancer overall, although that risk was threefold higher for the TP53 mutation.

For the 12 genes the consortium singled out as being associated with either a significant or a more modest risk for breast cancer, the effect size did not vary significantly between European and Asian women, the authors noted. Again, the risk for ER-positive breast cancer was over two times greater for those who had either the ATM or the CHEK2 mutation. Having mutations in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA1, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D conferred a higher risk for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease.

There was also an association between rare missense variants in six genes – CHEK2, ATM, TP53, BRCA1, CDH1, and RECQL – and overall breast cancer risk, with the clearest evidence being for CHEK2.

“The absolute risk estimates place protein-truncating variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 in the high-risk category and place protein-truncating variants in ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, RAD51CC, and RAD51D in the moderate-risk category,” Dr. Dorling and colleagues reaffirmed.

“These results may guide screening as well as prevention with risk-reducing surgery or medication, in accordance with national guidelines,” the authors suggested.

The CARRIERS study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The study by Dr. Dorling and colleagues was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programs, among others. Dr. Narod disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New findings of breast cancer gene mutations in women who have no family history of the disease offer a new way of estimating risk and may change the way in which these women are advised on risk management.

The findings come from two large studies, both published on Jan. 20 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The two articles are “extraordinary” for broadening and validating the genomic panel to help screen women at risk for breast cancer in the future, commented Eric Topol, MD, professor of molecular medicine, Scripps Research, La Jolla, Calif., and Medscape editor in chief.

“Traditionally, genetic testing of inherited breast cancer genes has focused on women at high risk who have a strong family history of breast cancer or those who were diagnosed at an early age, such as under 45 years,” commented the lead investigator of one of the studies, Fergus Couch, PhD, a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“[Although] the risk of developing breast cancer is generally lower for women without a family history of the disease ... when we looked at all women, we found that 30% of breast cancer mutations occurred in women who are not high risk,” he said.

In both studies, mutations or variants in eight genes – BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, ATM, and CHEK2 – were found to be significantly associated with breast cancer risk.

However, the distribution of mutations among women with breast cancer differed from the distribution among unaffected women, noted Steven Narod, MD, from the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

“What this means to clinicians, now that we are expanding the use of gene-panel testing to include unaffected women with a moderate risk of breast cancer in the family history, is that our time will increasingly be spent counseling women with CHEK2 and ATM mutations,” he wrote. Currently, these two are “clumped in with ‘other genes.’ ... Most of the pretest discussion is currently focused on the implications of finding a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.”

The new findings may lead to new risk management strategies, he suggested. “Most breast cancers that occur in women with a mutation in ATM or CHEK2 are estrogen receptor positive, so these women may be candidates for antiestrogen therapies such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors,” he wrote.

Dr. Narod observed that, for now, the management of most women with either mutation will consist of screening alone, starting with MRI at age 40 years.

The medical community is not ready yet to expand genetic screening to the general population, cautions Walton Taylor, MD, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

The ASBrS currently recommends that all patients with breast cancer as well as those at high risk for breast cancer be offered genetic testing. “All women at risk should be tested, and all patients with pathogenic variants need to be managed appropriately – it saves lives,” Dr. Taylor emphasized.

However, “unaffected people with no family history do not need genetic testing at this time,” he said in an interview.

As to what physicians might do to better manage patients with mutations that predispose to breast cancer, Dr. Taylor said, “It’s surprisingly easy.”

Every genetic testing company provides genetic counselors to guide patients through next steps, Dr. Taylor pointed out, and most cancer patients have nurse navigators who make sure patients get tested and followed appropriately.

Members of the ASBrS follow the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines when they identify carriers of a pathogenic variant. Dr. Taylor said these are very useful guidelines for virtually all mutations identified thus far.

“This research is not necessarily new, but it is confirmatory for what we are doing, and that helps us make sure we are going down the right pathway,” Dr. Taylor said. “It confirms that what we think is right is right – and that matters,.”
 

CARRIERS consortium findings

The study led by Dr. Couch was carried out by the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. It involved analyzing data from 17 epidemiology studies that focused on women in the general population who develop breast cancer. For the studies, which were conducted in the United States, pathogenic variants in 28 cancer-predisposition genes were sequenced from 32,247 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 32,544 unaffected women (control persons).

In the overall CARRIERS analysis, the prevalence of pathogenic variants in 12 clinically actionable genes was 5.03% among case patients and 1.63% among control persons. The prevalence was similar in non-Hispanic White women, non-Hispanic Black women, and Hispanic case patients, as well as control persons, they added. The prevalence of pathogenic variants among Asian American case patients was lower, at only 1.64%.

Among patients who had breast cancer, the most common pathogenic variants included BRCA2, which occurred in 1.29% of case patients, followed by CHEK2, at a prevalence of 1.08%, and BRCA1, at a prevalence of 0.85%.

Mutations in BRCA1 increased the risk for breast cancer more than 7.5-fold; mutations in BRCA2 increased that risk more than fivefold, the investigators stated.

Mutations in PALB2 increased the risk of breast cancer approximately fourfold, they added.

Prevalence rates for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 among breast cancer patients declined rapidly after the age of 40. The decline in other variants, including ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, was limited with increasing age.

Indeed, mutations in all five of these genes were associated with a lifetime absolute risk for breast cancer greater than 20% by the age of 85 years among non-Hispanic Whites.

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 yielded a lifetime risk for breast cancer of approximately 50%. Mutations in PALB2 yielded a lifetime breast cancer risk of approximately 32%.

The risk of having a mutation in specific genes varied depending on the type of breast cancer. For example, mutations in BARD1, RAD51C, and RAD51D increased the risk for estrogen receptor (ER)–negative breast cancer as well as triple-negative breast cancer, the authors noted, whereas mutations in ATM, CDH1, and CHEK2 increased the risk for ER-positive breast cancer.

“These refined estimates of the prevalences of pathogenic variants among women with breast cancer in the overall population, as opposed to selected high-risk patients, may inform ongoing discussions regarding testing in patients with breast cancer,” the CARRIERS authors observed.

“The risks of breast cancer associated with pathogenic variants in the genes evaluated in the population-based CARRIERS analysis also provide important information for risk assessment and counseling of women with breast cancer who do not meet high-risk selection criteria,” they suggested.
 

Similar findings in second study

The second study was conducted by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium under lead author Leila Dorling, PhD, University of Cambridge (England). This group sequenced 34 susceptibility genes from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 unaffected control persons.

“Protein-truncating variants in five genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a significant risk of breast cancer overall (P < .0001),” the BCAC members reported. “For these genes, odds ratios ranged from 2.10 to 10.57.”

The association between overall breast cancer risk and mutations in seven other genes was more modest, conferring approximately twice the risk for breast cancer overall, although that risk was threefold higher for the TP53 mutation.

For the 12 genes the consortium singled out as being associated with either a significant or a more modest risk for breast cancer, the effect size did not vary significantly between European and Asian women, the authors noted. Again, the risk for ER-positive breast cancer was over two times greater for those who had either the ATM or the CHEK2 mutation. Having mutations in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA1, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D conferred a higher risk for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease.

There was also an association between rare missense variants in six genes – CHEK2, ATM, TP53, BRCA1, CDH1, and RECQL – and overall breast cancer risk, with the clearest evidence being for CHEK2.

“The absolute risk estimates place protein-truncating variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 in the high-risk category and place protein-truncating variants in ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, RAD51CC, and RAD51D in the moderate-risk category,” Dr. Dorling and colleagues reaffirmed.

“These results may guide screening as well as prevention with risk-reducing surgery or medication, in accordance with national guidelines,” the authors suggested.

The CARRIERS study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The study by Dr. Dorling and colleagues was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programs, among others. Dr. Narod disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New findings of breast cancer gene mutations in women who have no family history of the disease offer a new way of estimating risk and may change the way in which these women are advised on risk management.

The findings come from two large studies, both published on Jan. 20 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The two articles are “extraordinary” for broadening and validating the genomic panel to help screen women at risk for breast cancer in the future, commented Eric Topol, MD, professor of molecular medicine, Scripps Research, La Jolla, Calif., and Medscape editor in chief.

“Traditionally, genetic testing of inherited breast cancer genes has focused on women at high risk who have a strong family history of breast cancer or those who were diagnosed at an early age, such as under 45 years,” commented the lead investigator of one of the studies, Fergus Couch, PhD, a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“[Although] the risk of developing breast cancer is generally lower for women without a family history of the disease ... when we looked at all women, we found that 30% of breast cancer mutations occurred in women who are not high risk,” he said.

In both studies, mutations or variants in eight genes – BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, ATM, and CHEK2 – were found to be significantly associated with breast cancer risk.

However, the distribution of mutations among women with breast cancer differed from the distribution among unaffected women, noted Steven Narod, MD, from the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

“What this means to clinicians, now that we are expanding the use of gene-panel testing to include unaffected women with a moderate risk of breast cancer in the family history, is that our time will increasingly be spent counseling women with CHEK2 and ATM mutations,” he wrote. Currently, these two are “clumped in with ‘other genes.’ ... Most of the pretest discussion is currently focused on the implications of finding a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.”

The new findings may lead to new risk management strategies, he suggested. “Most breast cancers that occur in women with a mutation in ATM or CHEK2 are estrogen receptor positive, so these women may be candidates for antiestrogen therapies such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors,” he wrote.

Dr. Narod observed that, for now, the management of most women with either mutation will consist of screening alone, starting with MRI at age 40 years.

The medical community is not ready yet to expand genetic screening to the general population, cautions Walton Taylor, MD, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

The ASBrS currently recommends that all patients with breast cancer as well as those at high risk for breast cancer be offered genetic testing. “All women at risk should be tested, and all patients with pathogenic variants need to be managed appropriately – it saves lives,” Dr. Taylor emphasized.

However, “unaffected people with no family history do not need genetic testing at this time,” he said in an interview.

As to what physicians might do to better manage patients with mutations that predispose to breast cancer, Dr. Taylor said, “It’s surprisingly easy.”

Every genetic testing company provides genetic counselors to guide patients through next steps, Dr. Taylor pointed out, and most cancer patients have nurse navigators who make sure patients get tested and followed appropriately.

Members of the ASBrS follow the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines when they identify carriers of a pathogenic variant. Dr. Taylor said these are very useful guidelines for virtually all mutations identified thus far.

“This research is not necessarily new, but it is confirmatory for what we are doing, and that helps us make sure we are going down the right pathway,” Dr. Taylor said. “It confirms that what we think is right is right – and that matters,.”
 

CARRIERS consortium findings

The study led by Dr. Couch was carried out by the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. It involved analyzing data from 17 epidemiology studies that focused on women in the general population who develop breast cancer. For the studies, which were conducted in the United States, pathogenic variants in 28 cancer-predisposition genes were sequenced from 32,247 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 32,544 unaffected women (control persons).

In the overall CARRIERS analysis, the prevalence of pathogenic variants in 12 clinically actionable genes was 5.03% among case patients and 1.63% among control persons. The prevalence was similar in non-Hispanic White women, non-Hispanic Black women, and Hispanic case patients, as well as control persons, they added. The prevalence of pathogenic variants among Asian American case patients was lower, at only 1.64%.

Among patients who had breast cancer, the most common pathogenic variants included BRCA2, which occurred in 1.29% of case patients, followed by CHEK2, at a prevalence of 1.08%, and BRCA1, at a prevalence of 0.85%.

Mutations in BRCA1 increased the risk for breast cancer more than 7.5-fold; mutations in BRCA2 increased that risk more than fivefold, the investigators stated.

Mutations in PALB2 increased the risk of breast cancer approximately fourfold, they added.

Prevalence rates for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 among breast cancer patients declined rapidly after the age of 40. The decline in other variants, including ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, was limited with increasing age.

Indeed, mutations in all five of these genes were associated with a lifetime absolute risk for breast cancer greater than 20% by the age of 85 years among non-Hispanic Whites.

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 yielded a lifetime risk for breast cancer of approximately 50%. Mutations in PALB2 yielded a lifetime breast cancer risk of approximately 32%.

The risk of having a mutation in specific genes varied depending on the type of breast cancer. For example, mutations in BARD1, RAD51C, and RAD51D increased the risk for estrogen receptor (ER)–negative breast cancer as well as triple-negative breast cancer, the authors noted, whereas mutations in ATM, CDH1, and CHEK2 increased the risk for ER-positive breast cancer.

“These refined estimates of the prevalences of pathogenic variants among women with breast cancer in the overall population, as opposed to selected high-risk patients, may inform ongoing discussions regarding testing in patients with breast cancer,” the CARRIERS authors observed.

“The risks of breast cancer associated with pathogenic variants in the genes evaluated in the population-based CARRIERS analysis also provide important information for risk assessment and counseling of women with breast cancer who do not meet high-risk selection criteria,” they suggested.
 

Similar findings in second study

The second study was conducted by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium under lead author Leila Dorling, PhD, University of Cambridge (England). This group sequenced 34 susceptibility genes from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 unaffected control persons.

“Protein-truncating variants in five genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a significant risk of breast cancer overall (P < .0001),” the BCAC members reported. “For these genes, odds ratios ranged from 2.10 to 10.57.”

The association between overall breast cancer risk and mutations in seven other genes was more modest, conferring approximately twice the risk for breast cancer overall, although that risk was threefold higher for the TP53 mutation.

For the 12 genes the consortium singled out as being associated with either a significant or a more modest risk for breast cancer, the effect size did not vary significantly between European and Asian women, the authors noted. Again, the risk for ER-positive breast cancer was over two times greater for those who had either the ATM or the CHEK2 mutation. Having mutations in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA1, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D conferred a higher risk for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease.

There was also an association between rare missense variants in six genes – CHEK2, ATM, TP53, BRCA1, CDH1, and RECQL – and overall breast cancer risk, with the clearest evidence being for CHEK2.

“The absolute risk estimates place protein-truncating variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 in the high-risk category and place protein-truncating variants in ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, RAD51CC, and RAD51D in the moderate-risk category,” Dr. Dorling and colleagues reaffirmed.

“These results may guide screening as well as prevention with risk-reducing surgery or medication, in accordance with national guidelines,” the authors suggested.

The CARRIERS study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The study by Dr. Dorling and colleagues was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programs, among others. Dr. Narod disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The relationship between obesity and overweight and breast cancer has some elements of mystery. But this is not one of them: in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), excess body weight does not negatively influence outcomes.

Multiple small studies have demonstrated this point, and now, for the first time, a large multicenter cohort analysis indicates the same.

Using medical records from 18 French comprehensive cancer centers, investigators reviewed body mass index (BMI) and overall survival (OS) data for nearly 13,000 women. The median OS was 47.4 months, and the median follow-up was about the same length of time. The team reports that obesity and overweight “were clearly not associated with prognosis.”

However, underweight was independently associated with worse OS (median, 33 months; hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.27), report Khalil Saleh, MD, of Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

In short, obesity or overweight had no effect on the primary outcome of OS, but underweight did.

“Underweight should be the subject of clinical attention at the time of diagnosis of MBC, and specific management should be implemented,” said study author Elise Deluche, MD, of CHU de Limoges, in an email to this news organization.

The study was published online Dec. 1 in The Breast.

“It’s really wonderful to have such a large cohort to look at this question,” said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was asked for comment.

Is this another case of obesity paradox in cancer (as in renal cell carcinoma and melanoma, where excess weight is tied to better cancer-specific survival)?

No, said Dr. Ligibel: “There’s no hint at all [in this study] that people with obesity and overweight did better. … They just didn’t have worse outcomes.”

The study authors point out that the opposite is true in early-stage breast cancer. In this patient population, excess weight is associated with worse outcomes.

For example, in a 2014 meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies in early-stage disease, obesity was associated with higher total mortality (relative risk, 1.41) and breast cancer–specific mortality (RR, 1.35) as compared to normal weight.

Why is there such a contrast between early- and late-stage disease?

“I don’t think we know exactly,” answered Dr. Ligibel. “It may be that, with breast cancer, as disease progresses, the pathways through which lifestyle may impact breast cancer may become less important.

“Obesity and overweight are associated with cancer risk in general,” said Dr. Ligibel, citing more than a dozen malignancies, including breast cancer.

But there is also an age element. Overweight or obesity is an independent predictor of breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, but in premenopausal women, it appears to be protective. “Historically, there has been a lower risk of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in women with obesity at younger ages that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Ligibel noted.

That age-based difference is a conundrum, said Dr. Ligibel: “People have been trying to figure that out for a long time.”

Dr. Ligibel summarized as follows:

“There is a clear relationship between obesity and the risk of developing breast cancer; there is a clear relationship in early breast cancer that obesity is related to an increased risk of occurrence and mortality. What we are seeing from this study is that, by the time you get to metastatic breast cancer, body weight does not seem to play as important a role.”
 

More study details

The findings come from the French National Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics–Metastatic Breast Cancer observational cohort, which includes 22,000-plus consecutive patients who were newly diagnosed with metastatic disease between 2008 and 2016.

A total of 12,999 women for whom BMI data were available when they were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer were selected for analysis. They were divided into four groups, according to World Health Organization classification: underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), and obese (≥30.0).

A total of 20% of women were obese, which is a much lower percentage than the 40%-50% that would be expected in a comparable American cohort, said Dr. Ligibel. Also, 5% of the French cohort was underweight.

Multivariate Cox analyses were carried out for OS and for first-line progression-free survival (PFS).

As noted above, underweight was independently associated with a worse OS. It was also tied to worse first-line PFS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22). Overweight or obesity had no effect.

“Patients with a low BMI had more visceral metastases and a greater number of metastatic sites,” pointed out study author Dr. Deluche. “We attribute the fat loss in patients with metastatic breast cancer to aggressive tumor behavior with a higher energy requirement.”

The study authors also observe that in early-stage breast cancer, underweight is not associated with overall or breast cancer–specific survival. “Underweight at metastatic diagnosis seems to have a different significance and impact,” they write. The French team also observes that, in other cancers, underweight is also an adverse prognostic factor and has been associated with a higher risk for death.

The study authors acknowledge that BMI has limitations as a measure of body type. “BMI alone cannot estimate a woman’s muscle mass and adiposity,” they observe. The suggestion is that, among women with a similar BMI, some might be muscular, whereas others might have more body fat.

Multiple study authors report financial ties to industry, including pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in breast cancer. The database used in the study receives financial support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Ligibel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The relationship between obesity and overweight and breast cancer has some elements of mystery. But this is not one of them: in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), excess body weight does not negatively influence outcomes.

Multiple small studies have demonstrated this point, and now, for the first time, a large multicenter cohort analysis indicates the same.

Using medical records from 18 French comprehensive cancer centers, investigators reviewed body mass index (BMI) and overall survival (OS) data for nearly 13,000 women. The median OS was 47.4 months, and the median follow-up was about the same length of time. The team reports that obesity and overweight “were clearly not associated with prognosis.”

However, underweight was independently associated with worse OS (median, 33 months; hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.27), report Khalil Saleh, MD, of Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

In short, obesity or overweight had no effect on the primary outcome of OS, but underweight did.

“Underweight should be the subject of clinical attention at the time of diagnosis of MBC, and specific management should be implemented,” said study author Elise Deluche, MD, of CHU de Limoges, in an email to this news organization.

The study was published online Dec. 1 in The Breast.

“It’s really wonderful to have such a large cohort to look at this question,” said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was asked for comment.

Is this another case of obesity paradox in cancer (as in renal cell carcinoma and melanoma, where excess weight is tied to better cancer-specific survival)?

No, said Dr. Ligibel: “There’s no hint at all [in this study] that people with obesity and overweight did better. … They just didn’t have worse outcomes.”

The study authors point out that the opposite is true in early-stage breast cancer. In this patient population, excess weight is associated with worse outcomes.

For example, in a 2014 meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies in early-stage disease, obesity was associated with higher total mortality (relative risk, 1.41) and breast cancer–specific mortality (RR, 1.35) as compared to normal weight.

Why is there such a contrast between early- and late-stage disease?

“I don’t think we know exactly,” answered Dr. Ligibel. “It may be that, with breast cancer, as disease progresses, the pathways through which lifestyle may impact breast cancer may become less important.

“Obesity and overweight are associated with cancer risk in general,” said Dr. Ligibel, citing more than a dozen malignancies, including breast cancer.

But there is also an age element. Overweight or obesity is an independent predictor of breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, but in premenopausal women, it appears to be protective. “Historically, there has been a lower risk of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in women with obesity at younger ages that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Ligibel noted.

That age-based difference is a conundrum, said Dr. Ligibel: “People have been trying to figure that out for a long time.”

Dr. Ligibel summarized as follows:

“There is a clear relationship between obesity and the risk of developing breast cancer; there is a clear relationship in early breast cancer that obesity is related to an increased risk of occurrence and mortality. What we are seeing from this study is that, by the time you get to metastatic breast cancer, body weight does not seem to play as important a role.”
 

More study details

The findings come from the French National Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics–Metastatic Breast Cancer observational cohort, which includes 22,000-plus consecutive patients who were newly diagnosed with metastatic disease between 2008 and 2016.

A total of 12,999 women for whom BMI data were available when they were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer were selected for analysis. They were divided into four groups, according to World Health Organization classification: underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), and obese (≥30.0).

A total of 20% of women were obese, which is a much lower percentage than the 40%-50% that would be expected in a comparable American cohort, said Dr. Ligibel. Also, 5% of the French cohort was underweight.

Multivariate Cox analyses were carried out for OS and for first-line progression-free survival (PFS).

As noted above, underweight was independently associated with a worse OS. It was also tied to worse first-line PFS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22). Overweight or obesity had no effect.

“Patients with a low BMI had more visceral metastases and a greater number of metastatic sites,” pointed out study author Dr. Deluche. “We attribute the fat loss in patients with metastatic breast cancer to aggressive tumor behavior with a higher energy requirement.”

The study authors also observe that in early-stage breast cancer, underweight is not associated with overall or breast cancer–specific survival. “Underweight at metastatic diagnosis seems to have a different significance and impact,” they write. The French team also observes that, in other cancers, underweight is also an adverse prognostic factor and has been associated with a higher risk for death.

The study authors acknowledge that BMI has limitations as a measure of body type. “BMI alone cannot estimate a woman’s muscle mass and adiposity,” they observe. The suggestion is that, among women with a similar BMI, some might be muscular, whereas others might have more body fat.

Multiple study authors report financial ties to industry, including pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in breast cancer. The database used in the study receives financial support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Ligibel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The relationship between obesity and overweight and breast cancer has some elements of mystery. But this is not one of them: in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), excess body weight does not negatively influence outcomes.

Multiple small studies have demonstrated this point, and now, for the first time, a large multicenter cohort analysis indicates the same.

Using medical records from 18 French comprehensive cancer centers, investigators reviewed body mass index (BMI) and overall survival (OS) data for nearly 13,000 women. The median OS was 47.4 months, and the median follow-up was about the same length of time. The team reports that obesity and overweight “were clearly not associated with prognosis.”

However, underweight was independently associated with worse OS (median, 33 months; hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.27), report Khalil Saleh, MD, of Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

In short, obesity or overweight had no effect on the primary outcome of OS, but underweight did.

“Underweight should be the subject of clinical attention at the time of diagnosis of MBC, and specific management should be implemented,” said study author Elise Deluche, MD, of CHU de Limoges, in an email to this news organization.

The study was published online Dec. 1 in The Breast.

“It’s really wonderful to have such a large cohort to look at this question,” said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was asked for comment.

Is this another case of obesity paradox in cancer (as in renal cell carcinoma and melanoma, where excess weight is tied to better cancer-specific survival)?

No, said Dr. Ligibel: “There’s no hint at all [in this study] that people with obesity and overweight did better. … They just didn’t have worse outcomes.”

The study authors point out that the opposite is true in early-stage breast cancer. In this patient population, excess weight is associated with worse outcomes.

For example, in a 2014 meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies in early-stage disease, obesity was associated with higher total mortality (relative risk, 1.41) and breast cancer–specific mortality (RR, 1.35) as compared to normal weight.

Why is there such a contrast between early- and late-stage disease?

“I don’t think we know exactly,” answered Dr. Ligibel. “It may be that, with breast cancer, as disease progresses, the pathways through which lifestyle may impact breast cancer may become less important.

“Obesity and overweight are associated with cancer risk in general,” said Dr. Ligibel, citing more than a dozen malignancies, including breast cancer.

But there is also an age element. Overweight or obesity is an independent predictor of breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, but in premenopausal women, it appears to be protective. “Historically, there has been a lower risk of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in women with obesity at younger ages that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Ligibel noted.

That age-based difference is a conundrum, said Dr. Ligibel: “People have been trying to figure that out for a long time.”

Dr. Ligibel summarized as follows:

“There is a clear relationship between obesity and the risk of developing breast cancer; there is a clear relationship in early breast cancer that obesity is related to an increased risk of occurrence and mortality. What we are seeing from this study is that, by the time you get to metastatic breast cancer, body weight does not seem to play as important a role.”
 

More study details

The findings come from the French National Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics–Metastatic Breast Cancer observational cohort, which includes 22,000-plus consecutive patients who were newly diagnosed with metastatic disease between 2008 and 2016.

A total of 12,999 women for whom BMI data were available when they were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer were selected for analysis. They were divided into four groups, according to World Health Organization classification: underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), and obese (≥30.0).

A total of 20% of women were obese, which is a much lower percentage than the 40%-50% that would be expected in a comparable American cohort, said Dr. Ligibel. Also, 5% of the French cohort was underweight.

Multivariate Cox analyses were carried out for OS and for first-line progression-free survival (PFS).

As noted above, underweight was independently associated with a worse OS. It was also tied to worse first-line PFS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22). Overweight or obesity had no effect.

“Patients with a low BMI had more visceral metastases and a greater number of metastatic sites,” pointed out study author Dr. Deluche. “We attribute the fat loss in patients with metastatic breast cancer to aggressive tumor behavior with a higher energy requirement.”

The study authors also observe that in early-stage breast cancer, underweight is not associated with overall or breast cancer–specific survival. “Underweight at metastatic diagnosis seems to have a different significance and impact,” they write. The French team also observes that, in other cancers, underweight is also an adverse prognostic factor and has been associated with a higher risk for death.

The study authors acknowledge that BMI has limitations as a measure of body type. “BMI alone cannot estimate a woman’s muscle mass and adiposity,” they observe. The suggestion is that, among women with a similar BMI, some might be muscular, whereas others might have more body fat.

Multiple study authors report financial ties to industry, including pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in breast cancer. The database used in the study receives financial support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Ligibel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

The first guidelines ever released for screening mammography for older survivors of breast cancer (>75 years) recommend that routine mammography be discontinued for women whose life expectancy is less than 5 years but that screening continue for those whose life expectancy is more than 10 years.

For women who have a life expectancy of 5-10 years, the guidelines recommend that consideration be given to discontinuing mammography.

Overall, the guidelines encourage shared decision-making that is individualized for each woman after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences.

The panel also recommended that patients with clinical findings and symptoms receive ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography and that patients be reassured that these practices will continue.

Guidelines on breast cancer screening for healthy women already “acknowledge the limitations of mammograms and the need to consider one’s health status and preferences when making decisions on how and when to stop routine mammograms,” said the article’s first author, Rachel A. Freedman, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

However, “we don’t have this kind of consensus for women with a history of breast cancer,” she continued. “Current follow-up care guidelines simply state that women with a history of breast cancer with intact breasts should have annual mammography without any guidance.

“In practice, the use of mammograms is highly variable, with less than 50% of breast cancer survivors who have limited life expectancy having annual mammograms, according to survey data we have from prior work,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview.

The guidelines were published online Jan. 28 in JAMA Oncology.
 

Clinicians discuss how to have these discussions

As part of the process of developing these expert consensus guidelines, the researchers held several clinical focus groups that involved primary care physicians from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and oncology clinicians (including breast surgeons and medical oncologists) from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

All clinicians felt that having expert guidelines and talking points to guide discussions would be helpful, the researchers report.

“However, some oncology clinicians felt that 75 years is often ‘too young’ to stop surveillance mammography and that 80 years may be a more comfortable age to stop routine testing,” they write. “Most clinicians felt that estimations of life expectancy, more than age, should inform the timing of this discussion.”

In contrast to primary and geriatric care clinicians, oncology clinicians reported discomfort with such discussions. They appreciated having the information but “felt it was easier to communicate findings indirectly, without specifically revealing life expectancy to patients. One oncology clinician, however, felt it would be ‘sneaky’ to calculate life expectancy without communicating this to patients, supporting more open discussions,” the authors report.

“All clinicians acknowledged that framing the conversation around patients’ low risk for in-breast cancer events and how mammography will not benefit them was more appealing than discussing life expectancy,” the researchers continue. Their literature review found that the risk of these individuals developing second breast cancers was similar to that of a healthy woman developing a first breast cancer, leading one clinician to comment: “If their risk is really equivalent to the general population – that is very powerful.”

“Some clinicians reported that they ‘focus on the risks’ or frame such discussions by asking: ‘If you were to find something on [a] mammogram, would you do anything about it?’ If a patient answered no, clinicians felt this was a signal to stop mammography,” they noted.
 

Literature review finds very low risk

Dr. Freedman and colleagues conducted a literature review of the risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among survivors and of the harms and benefits associated with mammography. Following the literature review, a multidisciplinary expert panel, which included patients and patient advocates, was convened to develop consensus guidelines.

The literature review confirmed that there was a low risk for in-breast cancer events in this population and that the risk was particularly low among patients who undergo treatment with endocrine therapy. Among those who did not receive systemic therapy for ERBB2-positive or triple-negative cancers, the rates of ipsilateral recurrence were estimated to be higher.

On the basis of the literature review, the estimated 10-year risk for in-breast cancer events ranged from 1% to 15% for ipsilateral breast cancers and from 1% to 5% for contralateral cancers. Among women in the same age group who did not have a history of breast cancer, the 5-year risk of developing the disease (average risk) was 2.2%.

The authors note that these findings mirror their estimates for new breast cancers among survivors who had low-risk disease. The findings are also similar to those cited in a large-scale mammography study, in which breast cancer survivors aged 70-80 years had a 1.1% annual risk for in-breast cancers. The risk was 0.7%-0.9% for similarly aged patients who did not have a history of breast cancer.

The benefits associated with mammography for older women are not well defined, but the literature suggests that mammography offers little to modest clinical benefit for patients in this age group. The limited benefits are likely because of the more than 10-year time lag that is needed to detect the small improvements in breast cancer mortality; slow-growing tumors generally do not affect the life expectancy of older women, they point out.

“Through our expert consensus process and after iterative feedback from clinicians, we created guidelines to support patients and clinicians in making individualized decisions on how and when to stop mammography,” said Dr. Freedman. “These guidelines are based on the risk of a breast cancer returning in the breast, one’s underlying health, and one’s preferences.”

The guidelines are also intended to provide information to patients on the benefits and harms of mammography in this setting, in addition to “how much we anticipate a mammogram may or may not continue to help a woman over time,” she said.

A companion guide for patients on these guidelines will be published in the coming months.

Dr. Freedman has received institutional clinical trial funding from Eisai and Puma Biotechnology outside the submitted work.

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

The first guidelines ever released for screening mammography for older survivors of breast cancer (>75 years) recommend that routine mammography be discontinued for women whose life expectancy is less than 5 years but that screening continue for those whose life expectancy is more than 10 years.

For women who have a life expectancy of 5-10 years, the guidelines recommend that consideration be given to discontinuing mammography.

Overall, the guidelines encourage shared decision-making that is individualized for each woman after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences.

The panel also recommended that patients with clinical findings and symptoms receive ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography and that patients be reassured that these practices will continue.

Guidelines on breast cancer screening for healthy women already “acknowledge the limitations of mammograms and the need to consider one’s health status and preferences when making decisions on how and when to stop routine mammograms,” said the article’s first author, Rachel A. Freedman, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

However, “we don’t have this kind of consensus for women with a history of breast cancer,” she continued. “Current follow-up care guidelines simply state that women with a history of breast cancer with intact breasts should have annual mammography without any guidance.

“In practice, the use of mammograms is highly variable, with less than 50% of breast cancer survivors who have limited life expectancy having annual mammograms, according to survey data we have from prior work,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview.

The guidelines were published online Jan. 28 in JAMA Oncology.
 

Clinicians discuss how to have these discussions

As part of the process of developing these expert consensus guidelines, the researchers held several clinical focus groups that involved primary care physicians from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and oncology clinicians (including breast surgeons and medical oncologists) from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

All clinicians felt that having expert guidelines and talking points to guide discussions would be helpful, the researchers report.

“However, some oncology clinicians felt that 75 years is often ‘too young’ to stop surveillance mammography and that 80 years may be a more comfortable age to stop routine testing,” they write. “Most clinicians felt that estimations of life expectancy, more than age, should inform the timing of this discussion.”

In contrast to primary and geriatric care clinicians, oncology clinicians reported discomfort with such discussions. They appreciated having the information but “felt it was easier to communicate findings indirectly, without specifically revealing life expectancy to patients. One oncology clinician, however, felt it would be ‘sneaky’ to calculate life expectancy without communicating this to patients, supporting more open discussions,” the authors report.

“All clinicians acknowledged that framing the conversation around patients’ low risk for in-breast cancer events and how mammography will not benefit them was more appealing than discussing life expectancy,” the researchers continue. Their literature review found that the risk of these individuals developing second breast cancers was similar to that of a healthy woman developing a first breast cancer, leading one clinician to comment: “If their risk is really equivalent to the general population – that is very powerful.”

“Some clinicians reported that they ‘focus on the risks’ or frame such discussions by asking: ‘If you were to find something on [a] mammogram, would you do anything about it?’ If a patient answered no, clinicians felt this was a signal to stop mammography,” they noted.
 

Literature review finds very low risk

Dr. Freedman and colleagues conducted a literature review of the risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among survivors and of the harms and benefits associated with mammography. Following the literature review, a multidisciplinary expert panel, which included patients and patient advocates, was convened to develop consensus guidelines.

The literature review confirmed that there was a low risk for in-breast cancer events in this population and that the risk was particularly low among patients who undergo treatment with endocrine therapy. Among those who did not receive systemic therapy for ERBB2-positive or triple-negative cancers, the rates of ipsilateral recurrence were estimated to be higher.

On the basis of the literature review, the estimated 10-year risk for in-breast cancer events ranged from 1% to 15% for ipsilateral breast cancers and from 1% to 5% for contralateral cancers. Among women in the same age group who did not have a history of breast cancer, the 5-year risk of developing the disease (average risk) was 2.2%.

The authors note that these findings mirror their estimates for new breast cancers among survivors who had low-risk disease. The findings are also similar to those cited in a large-scale mammography study, in which breast cancer survivors aged 70-80 years had a 1.1% annual risk for in-breast cancers. The risk was 0.7%-0.9% for similarly aged patients who did not have a history of breast cancer.

The benefits associated with mammography for older women are not well defined, but the literature suggests that mammography offers little to modest clinical benefit for patients in this age group. The limited benefits are likely because of the more than 10-year time lag that is needed to detect the small improvements in breast cancer mortality; slow-growing tumors generally do not affect the life expectancy of older women, they point out.

“Through our expert consensus process and after iterative feedback from clinicians, we created guidelines to support patients and clinicians in making individualized decisions on how and when to stop mammography,” said Dr. Freedman. “These guidelines are based on the risk of a breast cancer returning in the breast, one’s underlying health, and one’s preferences.”

The guidelines are also intended to provide information to patients on the benefits and harms of mammography in this setting, in addition to “how much we anticipate a mammogram may or may not continue to help a woman over time,” she said.

A companion guide for patients on these guidelines will be published in the coming months.

Dr. Freedman has received institutional clinical trial funding from Eisai and Puma Biotechnology outside the submitted work.

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

The first guidelines ever released for screening mammography for older survivors of breast cancer (>75 years) recommend that routine mammography be discontinued for women whose life expectancy is less than 5 years but that screening continue for those whose life expectancy is more than 10 years.

For women who have a life expectancy of 5-10 years, the guidelines recommend that consideration be given to discontinuing mammography.

Overall, the guidelines encourage shared decision-making that is individualized for each woman after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences.

The panel also recommended that patients with clinical findings and symptoms receive ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography and that patients be reassured that these practices will continue.

Guidelines on breast cancer screening for healthy women already “acknowledge the limitations of mammograms and the need to consider one’s health status and preferences when making decisions on how and when to stop routine mammograms,” said the article’s first author, Rachel A. Freedman, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

However, “we don’t have this kind of consensus for women with a history of breast cancer,” she continued. “Current follow-up care guidelines simply state that women with a history of breast cancer with intact breasts should have annual mammography without any guidance.

“In practice, the use of mammograms is highly variable, with less than 50% of breast cancer survivors who have limited life expectancy having annual mammograms, according to survey data we have from prior work,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview.

The guidelines were published online Jan. 28 in JAMA Oncology.
 

Clinicians discuss how to have these discussions

As part of the process of developing these expert consensus guidelines, the researchers held several clinical focus groups that involved primary care physicians from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and oncology clinicians (including breast surgeons and medical oncologists) from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

All clinicians felt that having expert guidelines and talking points to guide discussions would be helpful, the researchers report.

“However, some oncology clinicians felt that 75 years is often ‘too young’ to stop surveillance mammography and that 80 years may be a more comfortable age to stop routine testing,” they write. “Most clinicians felt that estimations of life expectancy, more than age, should inform the timing of this discussion.”

In contrast to primary and geriatric care clinicians, oncology clinicians reported discomfort with such discussions. They appreciated having the information but “felt it was easier to communicate findings indirectly, without specifically revealing life expectancy to patients. One oncology clinician, however, felt it would be ‘sneaky’ to calculate life expectancy without communicating this to patients, supporting more open discussions,” the authors report.

“All clinicians acknowledged that framing the conversation around patients’ low risk for in-breast cancer events and how mammography will not benefit them was more appealing than discussing life expectancy,” the researchers continue. Their literature review found that the risk of these individuals developing second breast cancers was similar to that of a healthy woman developing a first breast cancer, leading one clinician to comment: “If their risk is really equivalent to the general population – that is very powerful.”

“Some clinicians reported that they ‘focus on the risks’ or frame such discussions by asking: ‘If you were to find something on [a] mammogram, would you do anything about it?’ If a patient answered no, clinicians felt this was a signal to stop mammography,” they noted.
 

Literature review finds very low risk

Dr. Freedman and colleagues conducted a literature review of the risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among survivors and of the harms and benefits associated with mammography. Following the literature review, a multidisciplinary expert panel, which included patients and patient advocates, was convened to develop consensus guidelines.

The literature review confirmed that there was a low risk for in-breast cancer events in this population and that the risk was particularly low among patients who undergo treatment with endocrine therapy. Among those who did not receive systemic therapy for ERBB2-positive or triple-negative cancers, the rates of ipsilateral recurrence were estimated to be higher.

On the basis of the literature review, the estimated 10-year risk for in-breast cancer events ranged from 1% to 15% for ipsilateral breast cancers and from 1% to 5% for contralateral cancers. Among women in the same age group who did not have a history of breast cancer, the 5-year risk of developing the disease (average risk) was 2.2%.

The authors note that these findings mirror their estimates for new breast cancers among survivors who had low-risk disease. The findings are also similar to those cited in a large-scale mammography study, in which breast cancer survivors aged 70-80 years had a 1.1% annual risk for in-breast cancers. The risk was 0.7%-0.9% for similarly aged patients who did not have a history of breast cancer.

The benefits associated with mammography for older women are not well defined, but the literature suggests that mammography offers little to modest clinical benefit for patients in this age group. The limited benefits are likely because of the more than 10-year time lag that is needed to detect the small improvements in breast cancer mortality; slow-growing tumors generally do not affect the life expectancy of older women, they point out.

“Through our expert consensus process and after iterative feedback from clinicians, we created guidelines to support patients and clinicians in making individualized decisions on how and when to stop mammography,” said Dr. Freedman. “These guidelines are based on the risk of a breast cancer returning in the breast, one’s underlying health, and one’s preferences.”

The guidelines are also intended to provide information to patients on the benefits and harms of mammography in this setting, in addition to “how much we anticipate a mammogram may or may not continue to help a woman over time,” she said.

A companion guide for patients on these guidelines will be published in the coming months.

Dr. Freedman has received institutional clinical trial funding from Eisai and Puma Biotechnology outside the submitted work.

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

The combination of liothyronine (LT₃) with levothyroxine (LT₄) for the treatment of hypothyroidism shows no evidence of any increased risk of breast cancer in a large, long-term study, contrary to concerns raised in some prior trials.

“An increasing number of patients ask their physicians for a prescription of combination therapy, often causing tensions. Thus, the question of whether combination therapy does any harm to patients is crucial,” say Tereza Planck, MD, PhD, of Skane University Hospital, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues, in their article published online Jan. 5 in Thyroid.

“Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality,” they stress.

Asked to comment, Caroline T. Nguyen, MD, agrees that the study results are welcome in light of some previous evidence.

“The findings of these [prior] studies were concerning as they suggested an association between T₃ and breast cancer, breast cancer-specific mortality, and poorer prognosis with potential estrogen-like activity of T₃ on the estrogen receptor,” Dr. Nguyen of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Keck Medical Center of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, the findings of this paper provide some reassurance, which is important because, as the paper states, the use of T₃ is becoming increasingly common.”
 

Many patients with hypothyroidism opt to add liothyronine

Although the standard treatment for hypothyroidism, levothyroxine, increases free thyroxine (T₄) to high-normal levels, it may potentially lower triiodothyronine (T₃) to relatively low levels. There is speculation that the imbalance in a subset of patients could explain why some fail to have an adequate reduction of symptoms with levothyroxine alone.

To offset the effect, some add liothyronine (a synthetic version of T₃) to levothyroxine treatment as so-called “combination therapy.” However, a long-term study conducted in Scotland showed a borderline significant increase in breast cancer risk with the combination, raising concern.

To further investigate, Dr. Planck and coauthors used Swedish adult population data, identifying 575,461 individuals who had made at least three purchases of thyroid hormone therapy between July 2005 and December 2017, and had no history of breast cancer at the time of their first prescription.

Among the individuals, 11,147 had made at least three purchases of LT₃, including combinations with LT₄. LT₄-only users were an average age of 54.4 years, and the average age of those who also took LT₃ was 44.7 years.

Over a median follow-up of 8.1 years, there was no significantly increased risk of breast cancer among women treated with LT₃ plus LT₄ versus LT₄ alone (hazard ratio, 0.93), after adjusting for differences in age, sex, previous thyroid cancer, previous other cancer, use of antithyroid preparations, use of sex hormones, and dose.

Further evaluation of women as well as men showed those treated with LT₃ also had no increased incidence of any cancer (HR, 0.97).

In dose-adjusted models, LT₃ treatment did, surprisingly, appear to have a protective effect in terms of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.69) and any cancer mortality (HR, 0.78) for men and women.

However, the implications of these latter results remain uncertain, first author Dr. Planck said in an interview.

“We think the data on reduced mortality should be interpreted with caution, as we only observe the differences in the models adjusting for dose,” she noted.

 

LT3 treatment still considered ‘experimental’

Despite the dramatic increase in LT₃ prescribing in recent years noted by the authors, as many as five systematic reviews/meta-analyses have shown no superiority of combination therapy over LT₄ alone in terms of hypothyroid symptoms, quality of life, or patient preference.

As a result, many international guidelines still consider the combination-treatment approach to be experimental.

Other trials that have raised concerns about the combination include previous large, prospective Swedish studies that have linked higher endogenous T₃ levels to breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

As for the mechanism, some small experimental studies have suggested an estrogenlike effect whereby T₃ could enhance the proliferation of breast cancer cells.

On a broader level, thyroid hormones, in general, have been extensively studied in cancer research as possibly promoting cancer cell proliferation in a variety of cancer types.

However, the current findings should lay some of those concerns to rest, Dr. Planck reiterated: “Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality.”

“We did not identify any increase in breast cancer incidence, any cancer incidence, all-cause mortality, any cancer mortality, or breast cancer mortality between individuals using LT₃ and LT₄ treatment.”

The authors and Nguyen have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of liothyronine (LT₃) with levothyroxine (LT₄) for the treatment of hypothyroidism shows no evidence of any increased risk of breast cancer in a large, long-term study, contrary to concerns raised in some prior trials.

“An increasing number of patients ask their physicians for a prescription of combination therapy, often causing tensions. Thus, the question of whether combination therapy does any harm to patients is crucial,” say Tereza Planck, MD, PhD, of Skane University Hospital, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues, in their article published online Jan. 5 in Thyroid.

“Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality,” they stress.

Asked to comment, Caroline T. Nguyen, MD, agrees that the study results are welcome in light of some previous evidence.

“The findings of these [prior] studies were concerning as they suggested an association between T₃ and breast cancer, breast cancer-specific mortality, and poorer prognosis with potential estrogen-like activity of T₃ on the estrogen receptor,” Dr. Nguyen of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Keck Medical Center of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, the findings of this paper provide some reassurance, which is important because, as the paper states, the use of T₃ is becoming increasingly common.”
 

Many patients with hypothyroidism opt to add liothyronine

Although the standard treatment for hypothyroidism, levothyroxine, increases free thyroxine (T₄) to high-normal levels, it may potentially lower triiodothyronine (T₃) to relatively low levels. There is speculation that the imbalance in a subset of patients could explain why some fail to have an adequate reduction of symptoms with levothyroxine alone.

To offset the effect, some add liothyronine (a synthetic version of T₃) to levothyroxine treatment as so-called “combination therapy.” However, a long-term study conducted in Scotland showed a borderline significant increase in breast cancer risk with the combination, raising concern.

To further investigate, Dr. Planck and coauthors used Swedish adult population data, identifying 575,461 individuals who had made at least three purchases of thyroid hormone therapy between July 2005 and December 2017, and had no history of breast cancer at the time of their first prescription.

Among the individuals, 11,147 had made at least three purchases of LT₃, including combinations with LT₄. LT₄-only users were an average age of 54.4 years, and the average age of those who also took LT₃ was 44.7 years.

Over a median follow-up of 8.1 years, there was no significantly increased risk of breast cancer among women treated with LT₃ plus LT₄ versus LT₄ alone (hazard ratio, 0.93), after adjusting for differences in age, sex, previous thyroid cancer, previous other cancer, use of antithyroid preparations, use of sex hormones, and dose.

Further evaluation of women as well as men showed those treated with LT₃ also had no increased incidence of any cancer (HR, 0.97).

In dose-adjusted models, LT₃ treatment did, surprisingly, appear to have a protective effect in terms of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.69) and any cancer mortality (HR, 0.78) for men and women.

However, the implications of these latter results remain uncertain, first author Dr. Planck said in an interview.

“We think the data on reduced mortality should be interpreted with caution, as we only observe the differences in the models adjusting for dose,” she noted.

 

LT3 treatment still considered ‘experimental’

Despite the dramatic increase in LT₃ prescribing in recent years noted by the authors, as many as five systematic reviews/meta-analyses have shown no superiority of combination therapy over LT₄ alone in terms of hypothyroid symptoms, quality of life, or patient preference.

As a result, many international guidelines still consider the combination-treatment approach to be experimental.

Other trials that have raised concerns about the combination include previous large, prospective Swedish studies that have linked higher endogenous T₃ levels to breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

As for the mechanism, some small experimental studies have suggested an estrogenlike effect whereby T₃ could enhance the proliferation of breast cancer cells.

On a broader level, thyroid hormones, in general, have been extensively studied in cancer research as possibly promoting cancer cell proliferation in a variety of cancer types.

However, the current findings should lay some of those concerns to rest, Dr. Planck reiterated: “Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality.”

“We did not identify any increase in breast cancer incidence, any cancer incidence, all-cause mortality, any cancer mortality, or breast cancer mortality between individuals using LT₃ and LT₄ treatment.”

The authors and Nguyen have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of liothyronine (LT₃) with levothyroxine (LT₄) for the treatment of hypothyroidism shows no evidence of any increased risk of breast cancer in a large, long-term study, contrary to concerns raised in some prior trials.

“An increasing number of patients ask their physicians for a prescription of combination therapy, often causing tensions. Thus, the question of whether combination therapy does any harm to patients is crucial,” say Tereza Planck, MD, PhD, of Skane University Hospital, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues, in their article published online Jan. 5 in Thyroid.

“Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality,” they stress.

Asked to comment, Caroline T. Nguyen, MD, agrees that the study results are welcome in light of some previous evidence.

“The findings of these [prior] studies were concerning as they suggested an association between T₃ and breast cancer, breast cancer-specific mortality, and poorer prognosis with potential estrogen-like activity of T₃ on the estrogen receptor,” Dr. Nguyen of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Keck Medical Center of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, the findings of this paper provide some reassurance, which is important because, as the paper states, the use of T₃ is becoming increasingly common.”
 

Many patients with hypothyroidism opt to add liothyronine

Although the standard treatment for hypothyroidism, levothyroxine, increases free thyroxine (T₄) to high-normal levels, it may potentially lower triiodothyronine (T₃) to relatively low levels. There is speculation that the imbalance in a subset of patients could explain why some fail to have an adequate reduction of symptoms with levothyroxine alone.

To offset the effect, some add liothyronine (a synthetic version of T₃) to levothyroxine treatment as so-called “combination therapy.” However, a long-term study conducted in Scotland showed a borderline significant increase in breast cancer risk with the combination, raising concern.

To further investigate, Dr. Planck and coauthors used Swedish adult population data, identifying 575,461 individuals who had made at least three purchases of thyroid hormone therapy between July 2005 and December 2017, and had no history of breast cancer at the time of their first prescription.

Among the individuals, 11,147 had made at least three purchases of LT₃, including combinations with LT₄. LT₄-only users were an average age of 54.4 years, and the average age of those who also took LT₃ was 44.7 years.

Over a median follow-up of 8.1 years, there was no significantly increased risk of breast cancer among women treated with LT₃ plus LT₄ versus LT₄ alone (hazard ratio, 0.93), after adjusting for differences in age, sex, previous thyroid cancer, previous other cancer, use of antithyroid preparations, use of sex hormones, and dose.

Further evaluation of women as well as men showed those treated with LT₃ also had no increased incidence of any cancer (HR, 0.97).

In dose-adjusted models, LT₃ treatment did, surprisingly, appear to have a protective effect in terms of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.69) and any cancer mortality (HR, 0.78) for men and women.

However, the implications of these latter results remain uncertain, first author Dr. Planck said in an interview.

“We think the data on reduced mortality should be interpreted with caution, as we only observe the differences in the models adjusting for dose,” she noted.

 

LT3 treatment still considered ‘experimental’

Despite the dramatic increase in LT₃ prescribing in recent years noted by the authors, as many as five systematic reviews/meta-analyses have shown no superiority of combination therapy over LT₄ alone in terms of hypothyroid symptoms, quality of life, or patient preference.

As a result, many international guidelines still consider the combination-treatment approach to be experimental.

Other trials that have raised concerns about the combination include previous large, prospective Swedish studies that have linked higher endogenous T₃ levels to breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

As for the mechanism, some small experimental studies have suggested an estrogenlike effect whereby T₃ could enhance the proliferation of breast cancer cells.

On a broader level, thyroid hormones, in general, have been extensively studied in cancer research as possibly promoting cancer cell proliferation in a variety of cancer types.

However, the current findings should lay some of those concerns to rest, Dr. Planck reiterated: “Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality.”

“We did not identify any increase in breast cancer incidence, any cancer incidence, all-cause mortality, any cancer mortality, or breast cancer mortality between individuals using LT₃ and LT₄ treatment.”

The authors and Nguyen have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new tool for predicting the risk of severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with early-stage breast cancer outperforms existing models and should help older patients and physicians make treatment decisions with more confidence, according to investigators.

They devised and tested the tool, called the Cancer and Aging Research Group–Breast Cancer (CARG-BC) score, in two cohorts of patients aged 65 years or older with stage I-III breast cancer.

The area under the curve for predicting grade 3-5 toxicity was 0.75 in the development cohort and 0.69 in the validation cohort, for a combined AUC of 0.73.

The CARG-BC score outperformed both Karnofsky performance status (AUC, 0.50) and the Cancer and Aging Research Group Chemotherapy Toxicity Tool (AUC, 0.56).

CARG-BC risk groups were also associated with hospitalizations, dose modifications, and early termination of treatment.

Allison Magnuson, DO, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues described these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

About CARG-BC

To calculate a patient’s CARG-BC score, the researchers added up points assigned to eight independent predictors of grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity:

• Planned anthracycline use (1 point)
• Stage II or III disease (3 points)
• Planned treatment duration longer than 3 months (4 points)
• Abnormal liver function (3 points)
• Low hemoglobin level (3 points)
• A fall in the previous 6 months (4 points)
• Limited ability to walk more than 1 mile (3 points)
• Lack of social support (3 points)

Patients with scores of 0-5 have a low risk, those with scores of 6-11 have an intermediate risk, and those with scores of 12 or above have a high risk of grade 3-5 toxicity.
 

Patient characteristics and results

There were 283 patients in the development cohort and 190 in the validation cohort. There were no significant demographic, disease, or treatment differences between the cohorts.

All patients had a mean age of 70.5 years, 36.2% had stage I disease, 42.9% had stage II, and 20.9% had stage III disease. Three-quarters of patients were non-Hispanic White, and 99.4% were women. Roughly a third of patients had received an anthracycline-based regimen.

Overall, about a quarter of patients had an unplanned dose reduction (24%), dose delay (26%), stopped treatment early (24%), or were hospitalized during treatment (23%). All of these occurrences were more likely in intermediate- and high-risk patients versus low-risk patients (P < .001).

In the development cohort, 19% of low-risk patients, 54% of intermediate-risk patients, and 87% of high-risk patients developed grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity.

Compared with the 93 patients in the low-risk group, the odds of toxicity was almost 5 times greater for the 159 intermediate-risk subjects, and 28 times greater for the 30 high-risk subjects.

In the validation cohort, grade 3-5 toxicity rates were 27% in the low-risk group, 45% in the intermediate-risk group, and 76% in the high-risk group.

This study had its limitations, including that a majority of subjects (72.2%) had a college education, and the validation cohort was accrued from the same 16 institutions as the development cohort.

“Further validation in a more diverse population should be considered,” the investigators wrote.
 

A ‘useful’ tool for guiding therapy

The investigators noted that chemotherapy is a complex decision for older adults with stage I-III breast cancer. While it may be indicated, chemotherapy is underused often because of the higher risk of severe toxicity in older people.

“Unfortunately, older adults aged 65 and over, who comprise about half of all breast cancer diagnoses, are significantly less likely to be offered chemotherapy compared to younger patients – sometimes because their doctors fear they won’t be able to tolerate it,” investigator Mina Sedrak, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., said in a press release.

The CARG-BC score may be useful to direct therapy in older adults with early-stage breast cancer, the investigators wrote. They noted that intensifying supportive care and developing modified treatment regimens may be appropriate for patients at higher risk for toxicity.

“Although this score should not be used as the only factor in deciding whether to administer and/or alter the dose or schedule of chemotherapy, the CARG-BC score can be used to facilitate this complex decision-making process, along with clinical judgment and patient preferences,” they wrote.

“I think this is a great tool. [It] will be helpful to me to have a more accurate conversation with geriatric patients about the actual risk/benefit ratio for chemotherapy in early breast cancer,” said Amy Tiersten, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, when asked for comment.

“If routinely implemented, it may help reduce age bias and also identify older patients who may look well but may be vulnerable and quickly decompensate while undergoing treatment,” said Lidia Schapira, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University. “Importantly, it can be used to guide conversations about trade-offs and to start a frank conversation about an older patient’s fears and concerns about treatment.”

This research was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope. The investigators, Dr. Schapira, and Dr. Tiersten had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A new tool for predicting the risk of severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with early-stage breast cancer outperforms existing models and should help older patients and physicians make treatment decisions with more confidence, according to investigators.

They devised and tested the tool, called the Cancer and Aging Research Group–Breast Cancer (CARG-BC) score, in two cohorts of patients aged 65 years or older with stage I-III breast cancer.

The area under the curve for predicting grade 3-5 toxicity was 0.75 in the development cohort and 0.69 in the validation cohort, for a combined AUC of 0.73.

The CARG-BC score outperformed both Karnofsky performance status (AUC, 0.50) and the Cancer and Aging Research Group Chemotherapy Toxicity Tool (AUC, 0.56).

CARG-BC risk groups were also associated with hospitalizations, dose modifications, and early termination of treatment.

Allison Magnuson, DO, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues described these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

About CARG-BC

To calculate a patient’s CARG-BC score, the researchers added up points assigned to eight independent predictors of grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity:

• Planned anthracycline use (1 point)
• Stage II or III disease (3 points)
• Planned treatment duration longer than 3 months (4 points)
• Abnormal liver function (3 points)
• Low hemoglobin level (3 points)
• A fall in the previous 6 months (4 points)
• Limited ability to walk more than 1 mile (3 points)
• Lack of social support (3 points)

Patients with scores of 0-5 have a low risk, those with scores of 6-11 have an intermediate risk, and those with scores of 12 or above have a high risk of grade 3-5 toxicity.
 

Patient characteristics and results

There were 283 patients in the development cohort and 190 in the validation cohort. There were no significant demographic, disease, or treatment differences between the cohorts.

All patients had a mean age of 70.5 years, 36.2% had stage I disease, 42.9% had stage II, and 20.9% had stage III disease. Three-quarters of patients were non-Hispanic White, and 99.4% were women. Roughly a third of patients had received an anthracycline-based regimen.

Overall, about a quarter of patients had an unplanned dose reduction (24%), dose delay (26%), stopped treatment early (24%), or were hospitalized during treatment (23%). All of these occurrences were more likely in intermediate- and high-risk patients versus low-risk patients (P < .001).

In the development cohort, 19% of low-risk patients, 54% of intermediate-risk patients, and 87% of high-risk patients developed grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity.

Compared with the 93 patients in the low-risk group, the odds of toxicity was almost 5 times greater for the 159 intermediate-risk subjects, and 28 times greater for the 30 high-risk subjects.

In the validation cohort, grade 3-5 toxicity rates were 27% in the low-risk group, 45% in the intermediate-risk group, and 76% in the high-risk group.

This study had its limitations, including that a majority of subjects (72.2%) had a college education, and the validation cohort was accrued from the same 16 institutions as the development cohort.

“Further validation in a more diverse population should be considered,” the investigators wrote.
 

A ‘useful’ tool for guiding therapy

The investigators noted that chemotherapy is a complex decision for older adults with stage I-III breast cancer. While it may be indicated, chemotherapy is underused often because of the higher risk of severe toxicity in older people.

“Unfortunately, older adults aged 65 and over, who comprise about half of all breast cancer diagnoses, are significantly less likely to be offered chemotherapy compared to younger patients – sometimes because their doctors fear they won’t be able to tolerate it,” investigator Mina Sedrak, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., said in a press release.

The CARG-BC score may be useful to direct therapy in older adults with early-stage breast cancer, the investigators wrote. They noted that intensifying supportive care and developing modified treatment regimens may be appropriate for patients at higher risk for toxicity.

“Although this score should not be used as the only factor in deciding whether to administer and/or alter the dose or schedule of chemotherapy, the CARG-BC score can be used to facilitate this complex decision-making process, along with clinical judgment and patient preferences,” they wrote.

“I think this is a great tool. [It] will be helpful to me to have a more accurate conversation with geriatric patients about the actual risk/benefit ratio for chemotherapy in early breast cancer,” said Amy Tiersten, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, when asked for comment.

“If routinely implemented, it may help reduce age bias and also identify older patients who may look well but may be vulnerable and quickly decompensate while undergoing treatment,” said Lidia Schapira, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University. “Importantly, it can be used to guide conversations about trade-offs and to start a frank conversation about an older patient’s fears and concerns about treatment.”

This research was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope. The investigators, Dr. Schapira, and Dr. Tiersten had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A new tool for predicting the risk of severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with early-stage breast cancer outperforms existing models and should help older patients and physicians make treatment decisions with more confidence, according to investigators.

They devised and tested the tool, called the Cancer and Aging Research Group–Breast Cancer (CARG-BC) score, in two cohorts of patients aged 65 years or older with stage I-III breast cancer.

The area under the curve for predicting grade 3-5 toxicity was 0.75 in the development cohort and 0.69 in the validation cohort, for a combined AUC of 0.73.

The CARG-BC score outperformed both Karnofsky performance status (AUC, 0.50) and the Cancer and Aging Research Group Chemotherapy Toxicity Tool (AUC, 0.56).

CARG-BC risk groups were also associated with hospitalizations, dose modifications, and early termination of treatment.

Allison Magnuson, DO, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues described these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

About CARG-BC

To calculate a patient’s CARG-BC score, the researchers added up points assigned to eight independent predictors of grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity:

• Planned anthracycline use (1 point)
• Stage II or III disease (3 points)
• Planned treatment duration longer than 3 months (4 points)
• Abnormal liver function (3 points)
• Low hemoglobin level (3 points)
• A fall in the previous 6 months (4 points)
• Limited ability to walk more than 1 mile (3 points)
• Lack of social support (3 points)

Patients with scores of 0-5 have a low risk, those with scores of 6-11 have an intermediate risk, and those with scores of 12 or above have a high risk of grade 3-5 toxicity.
 

Patient characteristics and results

There were 283 patients in the development cohort and 190 in the validation cohort. There were no significant demographic, disease, or treatment differences between the cohorts.

All patients had a mean age of 70.5 years, 36.2% had stage I disease, 42.9% had stage II, and 20.9% had stage III disease. Three-quarters of patients were non-Hispanic White, and 99.4% were women. Roughly a third of patients had received an anthracycline-based regimen.

Overall, about a quarter of patients had an unplanned dose reduction (24%), dose delay (26%), stopped treatment early (24%), or were hospitalized during treatment (23%). All of these occurrences were more likely in intermediate- and high-risk patients versus low-risk patients (P < .001).

In the development cohort, 19% of low-risk patients, 54% of intermediate-risk patients, and 87% of high-risk patients developed grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity.

Compared with the 93 patients in the low-risk group, the odds of toxicity was almost 5 times greater for the 159 intermediate-risk subjects, and 28 times greater for the 30 high-risk subjects.

In the validation cohort, grade 3-5 toxicity rates were 27% in the low-risk group, 45% in the intermediate-risk group, and 76% in the high-risk group.

This study had its limitations, including that a majority of subjects (72.2%) had a college education, and the validation cohort was accrued from the same 16 institutions as the development cohort.

“Further validation in a more diverse population should be considered,” the investigators wrote.
 

A ‘useful’ tool for guiding therapy

The investigators noted that chemotherapy is a complex decision for older adults with stage I-III breast cancer. While it may be indicated, chemotherapy is underused often because of the higher risk of severe toxicity in older people.

“Unfortunately, older adults aged 65 and over, who comprise about half of all breast cancer diagnoses, are significantly less likely to be offered chemotherapy compared to younger patients – sometimes because their doctors fear they won’t be able to tolerate it,” investigator Mina Sedrak, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., said in a press release.

The CARG-BC score may be useful to direct therapy in older adults with early-stage breast cancer, the investigators wrote. They noted that intensifying supportive care and developing modified treatment regimens may be appropriate for patients at higher risk for toxicity.

“Although this score should not be used as the only factor in deciding whether to administer and/or alter the dose or schedule of chemotherapy, the CARG-BC score can be used to facilitate this complex decision-making process, along with clinical judgment and patient preferences,” they wrote.

“I think this is a great tool. [It] will be helpful to me to have a more accurate conversation with geriatric patients about the actual risk/benefit ratio for chemotherapy in early breast cancer,” said Amy Tiersten, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, when asked for comment.

“If routinely implemented, it may help reduce age bias and also identify older patients who may look well but may be vulnerable and quickly decompensate while undergoing treatment,” said Lidia Schapira, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University. “Importantly, it can be used to guide conversations about trade-offs and to start a frank conversation about an older patient’s fears and concerns about treatment.”

This research was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope. The investigators, Dr. Schapira, and Dr. Tiersten had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]