Breast Cancer

Cancer geneticists have identified 21 clusters of complex chromosomal rearrangements in breast cancers that contain both known oncogenes and potential new driver loci.

A systematic analysis of chromosomal rearrangements in tissues from 560 patients with breast cancer identified 21 “hotspots,” some of which contain known oncogene chromosomal loci, and others of which contain genes not typically associated with breast cancer, reported Serena Nik-Zainal, PhD, of the University of Cambridge, England, and her colleagues.

“Detailed analysis of rearrangements at these hotspots highlights chromosomal aberrations likely driven by selection, and reveal underlying mutational processes,” they wrote in a study published online in Annals of Oncology.

The investigators sought insight into mutational mechanisms of gene amplifications by examining clustered rearrangements – somatic breakpoints occurring in high densities – in individual patients.

To see whether these rearrangements were associated with breast cancer, they identified the aforementioned chromosomal hotspots where clustered rearrangements were seen in samples from different patients.

They identified 624 cluster rearrangements in the 560 breast cancer genomes, including 17,247 within-chromosome rearrangements, and 6,509 between-chromosome translocations.

Of the 560 samples, 372 had at least one rearrangement cluster, with the frequency of clusters similar between some breast cancer types. For example, there were 0.96 rearrangements clusters per sample from patients with triple negative breast cancers, and 1.00 per sample from women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors.

“To identify loci where clusters of rearrangements recur across multiple independent tumor samples, we pooled all breakpoints in the ‘clustered’ category and sorted them according to position in the reference genome,” the investigators explained.

They used a Piecewise-Constant-Fitting algorithm to identify genome sequences where there were short inter-mutation distances between rearrangement clusters, suggesting the presence of hotspots.

In the 21 hotspots they identified, they found, as expected, common driver amplification regions (e.g., CCND1, ERBB2, ZNF217, chr8:ZNF703/FGFR1, IGF1R, and MYC), but also several hotspots near oncogenes that are not typically associated with breast cancer.

Notably, they saw simultaneous amplification of regions on chromosomes 8 and 11 (chr8:ZNF703/FGFR1 and chr11:CCND1). Amplification of these regions are frequent in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers. The investigators propose a pathogenic model in which a chromosome 8 to chromosome 11 translocation is an early, critical event leading to breast tumor development.

“Clustered rearrangements are common in breast cancer genomes, and often associated with gene amplifications that drive oncogenesis. Understanding the process of amplicon formation, an example of which we present here for the chr8:ZNF703/FGFR1 and chr11:CCND1 co-amplifications, will be important for our understanding of the origins of a subset of breast cancers,” they concluded.

The study was supported by an award from the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Nik-Zainal and coauthor Dominik Glodzik are inventors on several patent applications. All remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Glodzik D et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Sept 25. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy404.

Cancer geneticists have identified 21 clusters of complex chromosomal rearrangements in breast cancers that contain both known oncogenes and potential new driver loci.

A systematic analysis of chromosomal rearrangements in tissues from 560 patients with breast cancer identified 21 “hotspots,” some of which contain known oncogene chromosomal loci, and others of which contain genes not typically associated with breast cancer, reported Serena Nik-Zainal, PhD, of the University of Cambridge, England, and her colleagues.

“Detailed analysis of rearrangements at these hotspots highlights chromosomal aberrations likely driven by selection, and reveal underlying mutational processes,” they wrote in a study published online in Annals of Oncology.

The investigators sought insight into mutational mechanisms of gene amplifications by examining clustered rearrangements – somatic breakpoints occurring in high densities – in individual patients.

To see whether these rearrangements were associated with breast cancer, they identified the aforementioned chromosomal hotspots where clustered rearrangements were seen in samples from different patients.

They identified 624 cluster rearrangements in the 560 breast cancer genomes, including 17,247 within-chromosome rearrangements, and 6,509 between-chromosome translocations.

Of the 560 samples, 372 had at least one rearrangement cluster, with the frequency of clusters similar between some breast cancer types. For example, there were 0.96 rearrangements clusters per sample from patients with triple negative breast cancers, and 1.00 per sample from women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors.

“To identify loci where clusters of rearrangements recur across multiple independent tumor samples, we pooled all breakpoints in the ‘clustered’ category and sorted them according to position in the reference genome,” the investigators explained.

They used a Piecewise-Constant-Fitting algorithm to identify genome sequences where there were short inter-mutation distances between rearrangement clusters, suggesting the presence of hotspots.

In the 21 hotspots they identified, they found, as expected, common driver amplification regions (e.g., CCND1, ERBB2, ZNF217, chr8:ZNF703/FGFR1, IGF1R, and MYC), but also several hotspots near oncogenes that are not typically associated with breast cancer.

Notably, they saw simultaneous amplification of regions on chromosomes 8 and 11 (chr8:ZNF703/FGFR1 and chr11:CCND1). Amplification of these regions are frequent in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers. The investigators propose a pathogenic model in which a chromosome 8 to chromosome 11 translocation is an early, critical event leading to breast tumor development.

“Clustered rearrangements are common in breast cancer genomes, and often associated with gene amplifications that drive oncogenesis. Understanding the process of amplicon formation, an example of which we present here for the chr8:ZNF703/FGFR1 and chr11:CCND1 co-amplifications, will be important for our understanding of the origins of a subset of breast cancers,” they concluded.

The study was supported by an award from the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Nik-Zainal and coauthor Dominik Glodzik are inventors on several patent applications. All remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Glodzik D et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Sept 25. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy404.

Cancer geneticists have identified 21 clusters of complex chromosomal rearrangements in breast cancers that contain both known oncogenes and potential new driver loci.

A systematic analysis of chromosomal rearrangements in tissues from 560 patients with breast cancer identified 21 “hotspots,” some of which contain known oncogene chromosomal loci, and others of which contain genes not typically associated with breast cancer, reported Serena Nik-Zainal, PhD, of the University of Cambridge, England, and her colleagues.

“Detailed analysis of rearrangements at these hotspots highlights chromosomal aberrations likely driven by selection, and reveal underlying mutational processes,” they wrote in a study published online in Annals of Oncology.

The investigators sought insight into mutational mechanisms of gene amplifications by examining clustered rearrangements – somatic breakpoints occurring in high densities – in individual patients.

To see whether these rearrangements were associated with breast cancer, they identified the aforementioned chromosomal hotspots where clustered rearrangements were seen in samples from different patients.

They identified 624 cluster rearrangements in the 560 breast cancer genomes, including 17,247 within-chromosome rearrangements, and 6,509 between-chromosome translocations.

Of the 560 samples, 372 had at least one rearrangement cluster, with the frequency of clusters similar between some breast cancer types. For example, there were 0.96 rearrangements clusters per sample from patients with triple negative breast cancers, and 1.00 per sample from women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors.

“To identify loci where clusters of rearrangements recur across multiple independent tumor samples, we pooled all breakpoints in the ‘clustered’ category and sorted them according to position in the reference genome,” the investigators explained.

They used a Piecewise-Constant-Fitting algorithm to identify genome sequences where there were short inter-mutation distances between rearrangement clusters, suggesting the presence of hotspots.

In the 21 hotspots they identified, they found, as expected, common driver amplification regions (e.g., CCND1, ERBB2, ZNF217, chr8:ZNF703/FGFR1, IGF1R, and MYC), but also several hotspots near oncogenes that are not typically associated with breast cancer.

Notably, they saw simultaneous amplification of regions on chromosomes 8 and 11 (chr8:ZNF703/FGFR1 and chr11:CCND1). Amplification of these regions are frequent in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers. The investigators propose a pathogenic model in which a chromosome 8 to chromosome 11 translocation is an early, critical event leading to breast tumor development.

“Clustered rearrangements are common in breast cancer genomes, and often associated with gene amplifications that drive oncogenesis. Understanding the process of amplicon formation, an example of which we present here for the chr8:ZNF703/FGFR1 and chr11:CCND1 co-amplifications, will be important for our understanding of the origins of a subset of breast cancers,” they concluded.

The study was supported by an award from the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Nik-Zainal and coauthor Dominik Glodzik are inventors on several patent applications. All remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Glodzik D et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Sept 25. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy404.

ORLANDO – The moderately increased risk of breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes mellitus appears to be associated with adiposity rather than with diabetes or insulin treatment, findings from meta-analyses suggest.

Vasilis Varsakelis/Fotolia

In one meta-analysis of data from 21 prospective studies with a total of nearly 15.2 million women, 325,117 breast cancer cases, and a mean follow-up time of 8 years (nearly 33 million person-years), the risk of breast cancer was significantly greater among patients with diabetes than it was among patients without diabetes (summary relative risk, 1.11), Maria Bota reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

However, there was substantial unexplained heterogeneity of results across the individual studies (I² = 82%), said Ms. Bota, a faculty member at the International Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France.

“When the analysis was restricted to the 12 studies that adjusted for [body mass index], the summary relative risk decreased to 1.09 and the heterogeneity also decreased to a moderate value of 32%; when the analysis was restricted to the 9 studies that did not adjust for BMI, the summary relative risk increased to 1.14 again, and the heterogeneity increased even more to 91%,” she said.

In an analysis that combined the results of the nine studies that did not adjust for BMI along with crude relative risks from studies that reported both crude and BMI-adjusted relative risks (17 studies in all), the SRR was 1.12, and heterogeneity among the studies was high at 84%.

Additionally, an analysis by menopausal status based on four studies that reported breast cancer in both pre- and postmenopausal women showed SRRs for breast cancer of 0.97 (a 3% decrease in risk) and 1.14 among diabetic vs. nondiabetic premenopausal women and postmenopausal women, respectively, she said, noting that heterogeneity was low (I² = 0%) among the premenopausal breast cancer study groups and high (I² = 70%) among the postmenopausal study groups.

The findings provide evidence for a moderately increased risk of breast cancer in women with T2DM, Ms. Bota said.

“However, the effect of the adjustment or lack of adjustment on the heterogeneity suggests that the higher risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes may not be due to diabetes itself, but to adiposity,” she said, adding that “this hypothesis is equally supported by our subgroup analysis according to menopausal status because we saw that the risk of breast cancer was only associated with diabetes in postmenopausal women and this pattern resembles the pattern of the risk of breast cancer associated with adiposity, which is also only increased in postmenopausal women.”

This study was limited by insufficient data for investigating the sources of heterogeneity, she said.

“Therefore we propose ... future pooled analyses based on individual data from good quality prospective studies in order to increase the study power and to do some detailed analysis of the links between adiposity, diabetes, and breast cancer,” she concluded, adding that new studies to examine those relationships only in premenopausal women are also needed

In a separate meta-analysis, she and her colleagues, including Peter Boyle, PhD, president of the International Prevention Research Institute, assessed the association between insulin treatment and breast cancer risk in patients with diabetes.

“The long-acting insulin analogues glargine and detemir have been shown in some studies to be associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and other studies have shown no association between the use of these two compounds and the risk of breast cancer,” Dr. Boyle said in a separate presentation at the ADA meeting. “It was important to sort out a little bit what was going on in the literature.”

Overall, the meta-analysis of data from 12 longitudinal cohort studies – including more than 6,000 cases of breast cancer – showed a slight increase in breast cancer risk in patients taking long-acting insulin (SRR, 1.13) with “a relatively reasonable” level of heterogeneity (I² = 23%).

“But we see that the story is not that simple,” he said.

For example, some studies included only patients who were prescribed insulin for the first time after the study began (new users), some included only patients who were prescribed insulin before the study began (prevalent users), and some included both (ever users), which may have introduced bias in the results, he explained.

Studies of glargine included 4,168 breast cancer cases over a total of 1,418,743 person-years of observation, and studies of detemir included fewer than 2,047 breast cancer cases (not all studies reported case numbers). Among both new users of glargine and detemir, the SRR was 1.12, suggesting no real association between either glargine or detemir use and breast cancer, he said.

“One important take-home message is that you have to be careful that these pharmaco-epidemiological studies, even when working with the same database, may have conflicting results ... so we still need more robust standards in methods for [such] studies,” he concluded.

Ms. Bota reported having no disclosures. The study presented by Dr. Boyle was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Boyle is president of a charity that has received donations from Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and Lilly.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bota M. ADA 2018, Abstract 180-OR; Boyle P. ADA 2018, Abstract 133-OR.

ORLANDO – The moderately increased risk of breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes mellitus appears to be associated with adiposity rather than with diabetes or insulin treatment, findings from meta-analyses suggest.

Vasilis Varsakelis/Fotolia

In one meta-analysis of data from 21 prospective studies with a total of nearly 15.2 million women, 325,117 breast cancer cases, and a mean follow-up time of 8 years (nearly 33 million person-years), the risk of breast cancer was significantly greater among patients with diabetes than it was among patients without diabetes (summary relative risk, 1.11), Maria Bota reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

However, there was substantial unexplained heterogeneity of results across the individual studies (I² = 82%), said Ms. Bota, a faculty member at the International Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France.

“When the analysis was restricted to the 12 studies that adjusted for [body mass index], the summary relative risk decreased to 1.09 and the heterogeneity also decreased to a moderate value of 32%; when the analysis was restricted to the 9 studies that did not adjust for BMI, the summary relative risk increased to 1.14 again, and the heterogeneity increased even more to 91%,” she said.

In an analysis that combined the results of the nine studies that did not adjust for BMI along with crude relative risks from studies that reported both crude and BMI-adjusted relative risks (17 studies in all), the SRR was 1.12, and heterogeneity among the studies was high at 84%.

Additionally, an analysis by menopausal status based on four studies that reported breast cancer in both pre- and postmenopausal women showed SRRs for breast cancer of 0.97 (a 3% decrease in risk) and 1.14 among diabetic vs. nondiabetic premenopausal women and postmenopausal women, respectively, she said, noting that heterogeneity was low (I² = 0%) among the premenopausal breast cancer study groups and high (I² = 70%) among the postmenopausal study groups.

The findings provide evidence for a moderately increased risk of breast cancer in women with T2DM, Ms. Bota said.

“However, the effect of the adjustment or lack of adjustment on the heterogeneity suggests that the higher risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes may not be due to diabetes itself, but to adiposity,” she said, adding that “this hypothesis is equally supported by our subgroup analysis according to menopausal status because we saw that the risk of breast cancer was only associated with diabetes in postmenopausal women and this pattern resembles the pattern of the risk of breast cancer associated with adiposity, which is also only increased in postmenopausal women.”

This study was limited by insufficient data for investigating the sources of heterogeneity, she said.

“Therefore we propose ... future pooled analyses based on individual data from good quality prospective studies in order to increase the study power and to do some detailed analysis of the links between adiposity, diabetes, and breast cancer,” she concluded, adding that new studies to examine those relationships only in premenopausal women are also needed

In a separate meta-analysis, she and her colleagues, including Peter Boyle, PhD, president of the International Prevention Research Institute, assessed the association between insulin treatment and breast cancer risk in patients with diabetes.

“The long-acting insulin analogues glargine and detemir have been shown in some studies to be associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and other studies have shown no association between the use of these two compounds and the risk of breast cancer,” Dr. Boyle said in a separate presentation at the ADA meeting. “It was important to sort out a little bit what was going on in the literature.”

Overall, the meta-analysis of data from 12 longitudinal cohort studies – including more than 6,000 cases of breast cancer – showed a slight increase in breast cancer risk in patients taking long-acting insulin (SRR, 1.13) with “a relatively reasonable” level of heterogeneity (I² = 23%).

“But we see that the story is not that simple,” he said.

For example, some studies included only patients who were prescribed insulin for the first time after the study began (new users), some included only patients who were prescribed insulin before the study began (prevalent users), and some included both (ever users), which may have introduced bias in the results, he explained.

Studies of glargine included 4,168 breast cancer cases over a total of 1,418,743 person-years of observation, and studies of detemir included fewer than 2,047 breast cancer cases (not all studies reported case numbers). Among both new users of glargine and detemir, the SRR was 1.12, suggesting no real association between either glargine or detemir use and breast cancer, he said.

“One important take-home message is that you have to be careful that these pharmaco-epidemiological studies, even when working with the same database, may have conflicting results ... so we still need more robust standards in methods for [such] studies,” he concluded.

Ms. Bota reported having no disclosures. The study presented by Dr. Boyle was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Boyle is president of a charity that has received donations from Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and Lilly.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bota M. ADA 2018, Abstract 180-OR; Boyle P. ADA 2018, Abstract 133-OR.

ORLANDO – The moderately increased risk of breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes mellitus appears to be associated with adiposity rather than with diabetes or insulin treatment, findings from meta-analyses suggest.

Vasilis Varsakelis/Fotolia

In one meta-analysis of data from 21 prospective studies with a total of nearly 15.2 million women, 325,117 breast cancer cases, and a mean follow-up time of 8 years (nearly 33 million person-years), the risk of breast cancer was significantly greater among patients with diabetes than it was among patients without diabetes (summary relative risk, 1.11), Maria Bota reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

However, there was substantial unexplained heterogeneity of results across the individual studies (I² = 82%), said Ms. Bota, a faculty member at the International Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France.

“When the analysis was restricted to the 12 studies that adjusted for [body mass index], the summary relative risk decreased to 1.09 and the heterogeneity also decreased to a moderate value of 32%; when the analysis was restricted to the 9 studies that did not adjust for BMI, the summary relative risk increased to 1.14 again, and the heterogeneity increased even more to 91%,” she said.

In an analysis that combined the results of the nine studies that did not adjust for BMI along with crude relative risks from studies that reported both crude and BMI-adjusted relative risks (17 studies in all), the SRR was 1.12, and heterogeneity among the studies was high at 84%.

Additionally, an analysis by menopausal status based on four studies that reported breast cancer in both pre- and postmenopausal women showed SRRs for breast cancer of 0.97 (a 3% decrease in risk) and 1.14 among diabetic vs. nondiabetic premenopausal women and postmenopausal women, respectively, she said, noting that heterogeneity was low (I² = 0%) among the premenopausal breast cancer study groups and high (I² = 70%) among the postmenopausal study groups.

The findings provide evidence for a moderately increased risk of breast cancer in women with T2DM, Ms. Bota said.

“However, the effect of the adjustment or lack of adjustment on the heterogeneity suggests that the higher risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes may not be due to diabetes itself, but to adiposity,” she said, adding that “this hypothesis is equally supported by our subgroup analysis according to menopausal status because we saw that the risk of breast cancer was only associated with diabetes in postmenopausal women and this pattern resembles the pattern of the risk of breast cancer associated with adiposity, which is also only increased in postmenopausal women.”

This study was limited by insufficient data for investigating the sources of heterogeneity, she said.

“Therefore we propose ... future pooled analyses based on individual data from good quality prospective studies in order to increase the study power and to do some detailed analysis of the links between adiposity, diabetes, and breast cancer,” she concluded, adding that new studies to examine those relationships only in premenopausal women are also needed

In a separate meta-analysis, she and her colleagues, including Peter Boyle, PhD, president of the International Prevention Research Institute, assessed the association between insulin treatment and breast cancer risk in patients with diabetes.

“The long-acting insulin analogues glargine and detemir have been shown in some studies to be associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and other studies have shown no association between the use of these two compounds and the risk of breast cancer,” Dr. Boyle said in a separate presentation at the ADA meeting. “It was important to sort out a little bit what was going on in the literature.”

Overall, the meta-analysis of data from 12 longitudinal cohort studies – including more than 6,000 cases of breast cancer – showed a slight increase in breast cancer risk in patients taking long-acting insulin (SRR, 1.13) with “a relatively reasonable” level of heterogeneity (I² = 23%).

“But we see that the story is not that simple,” he said.

For example, some studies included only patients who were prescribed insulin for the first time after the study began (new users), some included only patients who were prescribed insulin before the study began (prevalent users), and some included both (ever users), which may have introduced bias in the results, he explained.

Studies of glargine included 4,168 breast cancer cases over a total of 1,418,743 person-years of observation, and studies of detemir included fewer than 2,047 breast cancer cases (not all studies reported case numbers). Among both new users of glargine and detemir, the SRR was 1.12, suggesting no real association between either glargine or detemir use and breast cancer, he said.

“One important take-home message is that you have to be careful that these pharmaco-epidemiological studies, even when working with the same database, may have conflicting results ... so we still need more robust standards in methods for [such] studies,” he concluded.

Ms. Bota reported having no disclosures. The study presented by Dr. Boyle was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Boyle is president of a charity that has received donations from Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and Lilly.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bota M. ADA 2018, Abstract 180-OR; Boyle P. ADA 2018, Abstract 133-OR.

Agrees that OC use clearly reduces mortality

Recent evidence from long-term observations of hundreds of thousands of women, in 10 European countries, clearly demonstrated that the use of oral contraceptives (OCs) reduced mortality by roughly 10%.^1,2 Newer OCs increase women’s overall survival. 

In comparison, reducing obesity by 5 body mass index points would reduce mortality by only 5%, from 1.05 to 1.³

Dr. Stavros Saripanidis
Thessaloniki, Greece

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Agrees that OC use clearly reduces mortality

Recent evidence from long-term observations of hundreds of thousands of women, in 10 European countries, clearly demonstrated that the use of oral contraceptives (OCs) reduced mortality by roughly 10%.^1,2 Newer OCs increase women’s overall survival. 

In comparison, reducing obesity by 5 body mass index points would reduce mortality by only 5%, from 1.05 to 1.³

Dr. Stavros Saripanidis
Thessaloniki, Greece

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Agrees that OC use clearly reduces mortality

Recent evidence from long-term observations of hundreds of thousands of women, in 10 European countries, clearly demonstrated that the use of oral contraceptives (OCs) reduced mortality by roughly 10%.^1,2 Newer OCs increase women’s overall survival. 

In comparison, reducing obesity by 5 body mass index points would reduce mortality by only 5%, from 1.05 to 1.³

Dr. Stavros Saripanidis
Thessaloniki, Greece

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

PHOENIX – Despite clear guidance on lack of benefit and potential harms, many patients with early-stage breast cancers at low metastasis risk have undergone imaging tests for staging, recent retrospective studies have shown.

Nearly one-third of early-stage breast cancer patients received the unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions in one of the two studies presented at a symposium on quality care sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Low-risk patients in that study were more likely to undergo imaging if they were younger or had triple-negative disease, among other factors, said researcher Brett Barlow, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Physicians should be further educated about the low-risk nature of early-stage breast cancer, even in subgroups that are perceived to be higher risk, Mr. Barlow said in an interview.

“I think we can reassure physicians that these patients will do well and that these guidelines are based on good data,” he said “There could potentially be an element of distrust in these guidelines in these higher-risk patients, and that may be what’s driving some of these extra tests.”

According to Mr. Barlow, imaging low-risk patients is inconsistent with guidance from Choosing Wisely, an initiative designed to promote discussions between clinicians and patients about medical tests or procedures that are unnecessary.

As part of that initiative, ASCO recommended that PET, CT, and radionuclide bone scans should not be performed for staging of early-stage breast cancer at low risk for metastasis.

There is a lack of evidence that demonstrates a benefit for those imaging modalities in patients with newly identified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or clinical stage I or II disease, the society said at the time.

Unnecessary imaging can result in unnecessary invasive procedures, overtreatment, radiation exposure, and misdiagnosis, the society said in the guidance, which was published in 2012.

Despite the guidance, 262 out of 872 patients with stage 0-II breast cancer (30%) seen during 2013-2015 underwent imaging, according to results of the single-center retrospective cohort study Mr. Barlow and his coauthors described in a poster presentation.

The median age of the patients who underwent unnecessary imaging was 55 years versus 60 years for patients who did not, according to the researchers.

Risk of inappropriate imaging was increased in younger patients, those with triple-negative disease versus those with any hormone receptor–positive disease, those with higher-stage breast cancer, and those without Medicare insurance, investigators found.

Although it’s unclear whether there were any formal, institution-level efforts to promote the ASCO recommendations during the 2013-2015 period, it was “definitely a topic of debate at the time,” Mr. Barlow said.

“Something we hope to evaluate further is whether we have improved,” he said. “It’s important to set a baseline and see how we did in this area. We look forward to reevaluating that in a few years to see.”

In a separate study, investigators reviewed records from Mount Sinai Health System in New York and found that unnecessary scans were performed in 19% of patients diagnosed with stage I-II breast cancer during 2014-2015.

No cases of metastatic disease were found in 733 patients included in the study, and 43% had false-positive findings, according to Ana I. Velazquez Manana, MD, MS, of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Foundation, New York, and her coinvestigators.

Imaging increased costs by $4,480 per patient, according to the investigators, who found in multivariate analysis that the unnecessary scans were associated with young age, presence of T2 tumor, positive lymph nodes, and triple-negative disease.

“Further educational efforts are needed to avoid unnecessary scans in patients with early-stage breast cancer,” the researchers wrote in an abstract describing the results.

Mr. Barlow reported no disclosures, while one coauthor reported disclosures related to Carevive Systems, Genentech/Roche, Medscape, Pack Health, and Pfizer. Dr. Velazquez Manana and her coauthors had no relationships to disclose, and their study was funded by the Medical Student Rotation for Underrepresented Populations.

SOURCE: Barlow B et al. Quality Care Symposium, Abstract 51. Velazquez Manana AI et al. Quality Care Symposium, Abstract 52.

PHOENIX – Despite clear guidance on lack of benefit and potential harms, many patients with early-stage breast cancers at low metastasis risk have undergone imaging tests for staging, recent retrospective studies have shown.

Nearly one-third of early-stage breast cancer patients received the unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions in one of the two studies presented at a symposium on quality care sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Low-risk patients in that study were more likely to undergo imaging if they were younger or had triple-negative disease, among other factors, said researcher Brett Barlow, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Physicians should be further educated about the low-risk nature of early-stage breast cancer, even in subgroups that are perceived to be higher risk, Mr. Barlow said in an interview.

“I think we can reassure physicians that these patients will do well and that these guidelines are based on good data,” he said “There could potentially be an element of distrust in these guidelines in these higher-risk patients, and that may be what’s driving some of these extra tests.”

According to Mr. Barlow, imaging low-risk patients is inconsistent with guidance from Choosing Wisely, an initiative designed to promote discussions between clinicians and patients about medical tests or procedures that are unnecessary.

As part of that initiative, ASCO recommended that PET, CT, and radionuclide bone scans should not be performed for staging of early-stage breast cancer at low risk for metastasis.

There is a lack of evidence that demonstrates a benefit for those imaging modalities in patients with newly identified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or clinical stage I or II disease, the society said at the time.

Unnecessary imaging can result in unnecessary invasive procedures, overtreatment, radiation exposure, and misdiagnosis, the society said in the guidance, which was published in 2012.

Despite the guidance, 262 out of 872 patients with stage 0-II breast cancer (30%) seen during 2013-2015 underwent imaging, according to results of the single-center retrospective cohort study Mr. Barlow and his coauthors described in a poster presentation.

The median age of the patients who underwent unnecessary imaging was 55 years versus 60 years for patients who did not, according to the researchers.

Risk of inappropriate imaging was increased in younger patients, those with triple-negative disease versus those with any hormone receptor–positive disease, those with higher-stage breast cancer, and those without Medicare insurance, investigators found.

Although it’s unclear whether there were any formal, institution-level efforts to promote the ASCO recommendations during the 2013-2015 period, it was “definitely a topic of debate at the time,” Mr. Barlow said.

“Something we hope to evaluate further is whether we have improved,” he said. “It’s important to set a baseline and see how we did in this area. We look forward to reevaluating that in a few years to see.”

In a separate study, investigators reviewed records from Mount Sinai Health System in New York and found that unnecessary scans were performed in 19% of patients diagnosed with stage I-II breast cancer during 2014-2015.

No cases of metastatic disease were found in 733 patients included in the study, and 43% had false-positive findings, according to Ana I. Velazquez Manana, MD, MS, of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Foundation, New York, and her coinvestigators.

Imaging increased costs by $4,480 per patient, according to the investigators, who found in multivariate analysis that the unnecessary scans were associated with young age, presence of T2 tumor, positive lymph nodes, and triple-negative disease.

“Further educational efforts are needed to avoid unnecessary scans in patients with early-stage breast cancer,” the researchers wrote in an abstract describing the results.

Mr. Barlow reported no disclosures, while one coauthor reported disclosures related to Carevive Systems, Genentech/Roche, Medscape, Pack Health, and Pfizer. Dr. Velazquez Manana and her coauthors had no relationships to disclose, and their study was funded by the Medical Student Rotation for Underrepresented Populations.

SOURCE: Barlow B et al. Quality Care Symposium, Abstract 51. Velazquez Manana AI et al. Quality Care Symposium, Abstract 52.

PHOENIX – Despite clear guidance on lack of benefit and potential harms, many patients with early-stage breast cancers at low metastasis risk have undergone imaging tests for staging, recent retrospective studies have shown.

Nearly one-third of early-stage breast cancer patients received the unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions in one of the two studies presented at a symposium on quality care sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Low-risk patients in that study were more likely to undergo imaging if they were younger or had triple-negative disease, among other factors, said researcher Brett Barlow, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Physicians should be further educated about the low-risk nature of early-stage breast cancer, even in subgroups that are perceived to be higher risk, Mr. Barlow said in an interview.

“I think we can reassure physicians that these patients will do well and that these guidelines are based on good data,” he said “There could potentially be an element of distrust in these guidelines in these higher-risk patients, and that may be what’s driving some of these extra tests.”

According to Mr. Barlow, imaging low-risk patients is inconsistent with guidance from Choosing Wisely, an initiative designed to promote discussions between clinicians and patients about medical tests or procedures that are unnecessary.

As part of that initiative, ASCO recommended that PET, CT, and radionuclide bone scans should not be performed for staging of early-stage breast cancer at low risk for metastasis.

There is a lack of evidence that demonstrates a benefit for those imaging modalities in patients with newly identified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or clinical stage I or II disease, the society said at the time.

Unnecessary imaging can result in unnecessary invasive procedures, overtreatment, radiation exposure, and misdiagnosis, the society said in the guidance, which was published in 2012.

Despite the guidance, 262 out of 872 patients with stage 0-II breast cancer (30%) seen during 2013-2015 underwent imaging, according to results of the single-center retrospective cohort study Mr. Barlow and his coauthors described in a poster presentation.

The median age of the patients who underwent unnecessary imaging was 55 years versus 60 years for patients who did not, according to the researchers.

Risk of inappropriate imaging was increased in younger patients, those with triple-negative disease versus those with any hormone receptor–positive disease, those with higher-stage breast cancer, and those without Medicare insurance, investigators found.

Although it’s unclear whether there were any formal, institution-level efforts to promote the ASCO recommendations during the 2013-2015 period, it was “definitely a topic of debate at the time,” Mr. Barlow said.

“Something we hope to evaluate further is whether we have improved,” he said. “It’s important to set a baseline and see how we did in this area. We look forward to reevaluating that in a few years to see.”

In a separate study, investigators reviewed records from Mount Sinai Health System in New York and found that unnecessary scans were performed in 19% of patients diagnosed with stage I-II breast cancer during 2014-2015.

No cases of metastatic disease were found in 733 patients included in the study, and 43% had false-positive findings, according to Ana I. Velazquez Manana, MD, MS, of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Foundation, New York, and her coinvestigators.

Imaging increased costs by $4,480 per patient, according to the investigators, who found in multivariate analysis that the unnecessary scans were associated with young age, presence of T2 tumor, positive lymph nodes, and triple-negative disease.

“Further educational efforts are needed to avoid unnecessary scans in patients with early-stage breast cancer,” the researchers wrote in an abstract describing the results.

Mr. Barlow reported no disclosures, while one coauthor reported disclosures related to Carevive Systems, Genentech/Roche, Medscape, Pack Health, and Pfizer. Dr. Velazquez Manana and her coauthors had no relationships to disclose, and their study was funded by the Medical Student Rotation for Underrepresented Populations.

SOURCE: Barlow B et al. Quality Care Symposium, Abstract 51. Velazquez Manana AI et al. Quality Care Symposium, Abstract 52.

The immune microenvironment of metastatic breast cancer lesions is relatively inert and depleted versus primary tumors, results of a recent study suggest.

“These results predict that immune therapy may be more successful in early stage breast cancers rather than in metastatic disease,” Lajos Pusztai, MD, and study coinvestigators reported in Annals of Oncology.

However, metastatic breast cancers showed high expression levels of some targetable molecules that may provide a “foundation for rational immunotherapy combination strategies,” wrote Dr. Pusztai, director of breast cancer translational research at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and his coinvestigators.

The investigators looked at tumor PD-L1 protein expression, tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) count, and mRNA expression for 730 immune-related genes in both primary and metastatic cancer samples obtained from pathologists at Yale.

The study included one cohort with full sections of paired metastatic and primary tumors from 45 patients, and a second cohort of tissue microarrays from 55 other patients.

Compared with primary lesions, metastatic lesions had substantially lower levels of PD-L1 expression and TIL counts, the investigators found.

Staining of PD-L1 was primarily seen in stromal immune cells, rather than tumor cells, according to investigators. The median stromal PD-L1 positivity was 14% for metastases and 52% for primary tumors in the first cohort (P = .0004), and 7% for metastases and 22% for primary tumors in the second cohort (P = .03).

They also reported significant decreased TIL counts in metastatic lesions for both the first (P = .026) and second (P = .089) cohorts, the report shows.

Immune gene expression profiling results, similarly, showed that most immune cell types and functions were “depleted” in the metastatic lesions, including a decreased mRNA expression of CTLA4, Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues reported.

The “lesser immunogenicity” of metastatic breast cancer cells was shown by decreased expression of immune proteasome and MHC class I genes, along with increased expression of HLA-E, which has been shown to suppress immunity, and reduced presence of dendritic cells, they said.

However, they also found high expression of targetable molecules in metastatic lesions. Those included macrophage markers such as CD68 and CD163, cytokine ligand/receptor pairs that mediate pro-tumorigenic effects, such as CCL2/CCR2 and CXCR4/CXCL12, and signaling molecules such as STAT-3 and JAK2, among others.

“We suggest that targeting these molecules may lead to synergy with PD1/PD-L1 blockade in metastatic breast cancer,” they wrote.

The work by Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Awards, and the Rosztoczy Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Szekely B, et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy399.

The immune microenvironment of metastatic breast cancer lesions is relatively inert and depleted versus primary tumors, results of a recent study suggest.

“These results predict that immune therapy may be more successful in early stage breast cancers rather than in metastatic disease,” Lajos Pusztai, MD, and study coinvestigators reported in Annals of Oncology.

However, metastatic breast cancers showed high expression levels of some targetable molecules that may provide a “foundation for rational immunotherapy combination strategies,” wrote Dr. Pusztai, director of breast cancer translational research at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and his coinvestigators.

The investigators looked at tumor PD-L1 protein expression, tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) count, and mRNA expression for 730 immune-related genes in both primary and metastatic cancer samples obtained from pathologists at Yale.

The study included one cohort with full sections of paired metastatic and primary tumors from 45 patients, and a second cohort of tissue microarrays from 55 other patients.

Compared with primary lesions, metastatic lesions had substantially lower levels of PD-L1 expression and TIL counts, the investigators found.

Staining of PD-L1 was primarily seen in stromal immune cells, rather than tumor cells, according to investigators. The median stromal PD-L1 positivity was 14% for metastases and 52% for primary tumors in the first cohort (P = .0004), and 7% for metastases and 22% for primary tumors in the second cohort (P = .03).

They also reported significant decreased TIL counts in metastatic lesions for both the first (P = .026) and second (P = .089) cohorts, the report shows.

Immune gene expression profiling results, similarly, showed that most immune cell types and functions were “depleted” in the metastatic lesions, including a decreased mRNA expression of CTLA4, Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues reported.

The “lesser immunogenicity” of metastatic breast cancer cells was shown by decreased expression of immune proteasome and MHC class I genes, along with increased expression of HLA-E, which has been shown to suppress immunity, and reduced presence of dendritic cells, they said.

However, they also found high expression of targetable molecules in metastatic lesions. Those included macrophage markers such as CD68 and CD163, cytokine ligand/receptor pairs that mediate pro-tumorigenic effects, such as CCL2/CCR2 and CXCR4/CXCL12, and signaling molecules such as STAT-3 and JAK2, among others.

“We suggest that targeting these molecules may lead to synergy with PD1/PD-L1 blockade in metastatic breast cancer,” they wrote.

The work by Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Awards, and the Rosztoczy Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Szekely B, et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy399.

The immune microenvironment of metastatic breast cancer lesions is relatively inert and depleted versus primary tumors, results of a recent study suggest.

“These results predict that immune therapy may be more successful in early stage breast cancers rather than in metastatic disease,” Lajos Pusztai, MD, and study coinvestigators reported in Annals of Oncology.

However, metastatic breast cancers showed high expression levels of some targetable molecules that may provide a “foundation for rational immunotherapy combination strategies,” wrote Dr. Pusztai, director of breast cancer translational research at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and his coinvestigators.

The investigators looked at tumor PD-L1 protein expression, tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) count, and mRNA expression for 730 immune-related genes in both primary and metastatic cancer samples obtained from pathologists at Yale.

The study included one cohort with full sections of paired metastatic and primary tumors from 45 patients, and a second cohort of tissue microarrays from 55 other patients.

Compared with primary lesions, metastatic lesions had substantially lower levels of PD-L1 expression and TIL counts, the investigators found.

Staining of PD-L1 was primarily seen in stromal immune cells, rather than tumor cells, according to investigators. The median stromal PD-L1 positivity was 14% for metastases and 52% for primary tumors in the first cohort (P = .0004), and 7% for metastases and 22% for primary tumors in the second cohort (P = .03).

They also reported significant decreased TIL counts in metastatic lesions for both the first (P = .026) and second (P = .089) cohorts, the report shows.

Immune gene expression profiling results, similarly, showed that most immune cell types and functions were “depleted” in the metastatic lesions, including a decreased mRNA expression of CTLA4, Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues reported.

The “lesser immunogenicity” of metastatic breast cancer cells was shown by decreased expression of immune proteasome and MHC class I genes, along with increased expression of HLA-E, which has been shown to suppress immunity, and reduced presence of dendritic cells, they said.

However, they also found high expression of targetable molecules in metastatic lesions. Those included macrophage markers such as CD68 and CD163, cytokine ligand/receptor pairs that mediate pro-tumorigenic effects, such as CCL2/CCR2 and CXCR4/CXCL12, and signaling molecules such as STAT-3 and JAK2, among others.

“We suggest that targeting these molecules may lead to synergy with PD1/PD-L1 blockade in metastatic breast cancer,” they wrote.

The work by Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Awards, and the Rosztoczy Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Szekely B, et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy399.

Outcomes for women with operable HER2-positive breast cancer were similar whether they received standard combination chemotherapy with either concurrent or sequential paclitaxel/trastuzumab, long-term results of the phase 3, randomized American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1041 trial showed.

Among 280 women with HER-2 positive breast cancer followed for a median of 5.1 years, there were no significant differences in either pathological complete response rates (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS), or overall survival with either concurrent or sequential therapy, wrote Aman U. Buzdar, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his colleagues.

“A previous publication of this study’s primary analysis reported that breast pCR in patients treated with paclitaxel and trastuzumab followed by FEC [fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide] and trastuzumab did not differ significantly from that of patients receiving FEC followed by paclitaxel and trastuzumab. We now report the findings concerning the secondary outcomes, that is, with a median follow-up of approximately 5 years, DFS is similar among the two treatment arms,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The purpose of the current analysis was to evaluate long-term outcomes associated with the two treatment approaches.

In the trial, conducted at 36 centers in the continental United States and Puerto Rico, 280 women (median age, 50 years; range, 28-76 years) were treated with 500 mg/m² of fluorouracil, 75 mg/m² epirubicin, and 500 mg/m² cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 12 weeks with concurrent weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m² and trastuzumab at 2 mg/kg – after an initial dose of 4 mg/kg – or the same paclitaxel/trastuzumab combination delivered weekly for 12 weeks, followed by FEC every 3 weeks with weekly trastuzumab for 12 weeks.

Women who also had hormone receptor–positive disease received endocrine therapy. Radiotherapy was delivered at the discretion of the attending physician.

As noted, there were no differences in either DFS rates (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; P = .96) or overall survival rates (adjusted HR, 1.17; P = .73) between the trial arms.

The authors concluded that “concurrent administration of trastuzumab with FEC was not found to offer additional clinical benefit and is not warranted.”

The study was supported by grants to participating institutions from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Buzdar reported no conflicts of interest. Three coauthors reported research support, consulting fees, travel support, and/or other relationships with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Buzdar AU et al. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Sept 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3691.

Outcomes for women with operable HER2-positive breast cancer were similar whether they received standard combination chemotherapy with either concurrent or sequential paclitaxel/trastuzumab, long-term results of the phase 3, randomized American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1041 trial showed.

Among 280 women with HER-2 positive breast cancer followed for a median of 5.1 years, there were no significant differences in either pathological complete response rates (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS), or overall survival with either concurrent or sequential therapy, wrote Aman U. Buzdar, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his colleagues.

“A previous publication of this study’s primary analysis reported that breast pCR in patients treated with paclitaxel and trastuzumab followed by FEC [fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide] and trastuzumab did not differ significantly from that of patients receiving FEC followed by paclitaxel and trastuzumab. We now report the findings concerning the secondary outcomes, that is, with a median follow-up of approximately 5 years, DFS is similar among the two treatment arms,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The purpose of the current analysis was to evaluate long-term outcomes associated with the two treatment approaches.

In the trial, conducted at 36 centers in the continental United States and Puerto Rico, 280 women (median age, 50 years; range, 28-76 years) were treated with 500 mg/m² of fluorouracil, 75 mg/m² epirubicin, and 500 mg/m² cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 12 weeks with concurrent weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m² and trastuzumab at 2 mg/kg – after an initial dose of 4 mg/kg – or the same paclitaxel/trastuzumab combination delivered weekly for 12 weeks, followed by FEC every 3 weeks with weekly trastuzumab for 12 weeks.

Women who also had hormone receptor–positive disease received endocrine therapy. Radiotherapy was delivered at the discretion of the attending physician.

As noted, there were no differences in either DFS rates (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; P = .96) or overall survival rates (adjusted HR, 1.17; P = .73) between the trial arms.

The authors concluded that “concurrent administration of trastuzumab with FEC was not found to offer additional clinical benefit and is not warranted.”

The study was supported by grants to participating institutions from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Buzdar reported no conflicts of interest. Three coauthors reported research support, consulting fees, travel support, and/or other relationships with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Buzdar AU et al. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Sept 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3691.

Outcomes for women with operable HER2-positive breast cancer were similar whether they received standard combination chemotherapy with either concurrent or sequential paclitaxel/trastuzumab, long-term results of the phase 3, randomized American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1041 trial showed.

Among 280 women with HER-2 positive breast cancer followed for a median of 5.1 years, there were no significant differences in either pathological complete response rates (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS), or overall survival with either concurrent or sequential therapy, wrote Aman U. Buzdar, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his colleagues.

“A previous publication of this study’s primary analysis reported that breast pCR in patients treated with paclitaxel and trastuzumab followed by FEC [fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide] and trastuzumab did not differ significantly from that of patients receiving FEC followed by paclitaxel and trastuzumab. We now report the findings concerning the secondary outcomes, that is, with a median follow-up of approximately 5 years, DFS is similar among the two treatment arms,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The purpose of the current analysis was to evaluate long-term outcomes associated with the two treatment approaches.

In the trial, conducted at 36 centers in the continental United States and Puerto Rico, 280 women (median age, 50 years; range, 28-76 years) were treated with 500 mg/m² of fluorouracil, 75 mg/m² epirubicin, and 500 mg/m² cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 12 weeks with concurrent weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m² and trastuzumab at 2 mg/kg – after an initial dose of 4 mg/kg – or the same paclitaxel/trastuzumab combination delivered weekly for 12 weeks, followed by FEC every 3 weeks with weekly trastuzumab for 12 weeks.

Women who also had hormone receptor–positive disease received endocrine therapy. Radiotherapy was delivered at the discretion of the attending physician.

As noted, there were no differences in either DFS rates (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; P = .96) or overall survival rates (adjusted HR, 1.17; P = .73) between the trial arms.

The authors concluded that “concurrent administration of trastuzumab with FEC was not found to offer additional clinical benefit and is not warranted.”

The study was supported by grants to participating institutions from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Buzdar reported no conflicts of interest. Three coauthors reported research support, consulting fees, travel support, and/or other relationships with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Buzdar AU et al. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Sept 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3691.

This article was produced in partnership with The New York Times.

One of the world’s top breast cancer doctors failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from drug and health care companies in recent years, omitting his financial ties from dozens of research articles in prestigious publications like the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet.

The researcher, José Baselga, MD, a towering figure in the cancer world, is the chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He has held board memberships or advisory roles with Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, among other corporations; has had a stake in start-ups testing cancer therapies; and played a key role in the development of breakthrough drugs that have revolutionized treatments for breast cancer.

According to an analysis by ProPublica and the New York Times, Dr. Baselga did not follow financial disclosure rules set by the American Association for Cancer Research when he was president of the group. He also left out payments he received from companies connected to cancer research in his articles published in the group’s journal, Cancer Discovery. At the same time, he has been one of the journal’s two editors in chief.

At a conference this year and before analysts in 2017, he put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials that many others considered disappointments, without disclosing his relationship to the company. Since 2014, he has received more than $3 million from Roche in consulting fees and for his stake in a company it acquired.

Dr. Baselga did not dispute his relationships with at least a dozen companies. In an interview, he said the disclosure lapses were unintentional.

He stressed that much of his industry work was publicly known although he declined to provide payment figures from his involvement with some biotech start-ups. “I acknowledge that there have been inconsistencies, but that’s what it is,” he said. “It’s not that I do not appreciate the importance.”

Dr. Baselga’s extensive corporate relationships – and his frequent failure to disclose them – illustrate how permeable the boundaries remain between academic research and industry, and how weakly reporting requirements are enforced by the medical journals and professional societies charged with policing them.

A decade ago, a series of scandals involving the secret influence of the pharmaceutical industry on drug research prompted the medical community to beef up its conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Ethicists worry that outside entanglements can shape the way studies are designed and medications are prescribed to patients, allowing bias to influence medical practice. Disclosing those connections allows the public, other scientists, and doctors to evaluate the research and weigh potential conflicts.

If leaders don’t follow the rules, then we don’t really have rules,” said Walid Gellad, MD, an of the department of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and director of its Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing. “It says that the rules don’t matter.”

The penalties for such ethical lapses are not severe. The cancer research group, the American Association for Cancer Research, warns authors who fill out disclosure forms for its journals that they face a 3-year ban on publishing if they are found to have financial relationships that they did not disclose. But the ban is not included in the conflict-of-interest policy posted on its website, and the group said no author had ever been barred.

Many journals and professional societies do not check conflicts and simply require authors to correct the record.

Officials at the AACR, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the New England Journal of Medicine said they were looking into Dr. Baselga’s omissions after inquiries from the Times and ProPublica. The Lancet declined to say whether it would look into the matter.

Christine Hickey, a spokeswoman for Memorial Sloan Kettering, said that Dr. Baselga had properly informed the hospital of his outside industry work and that it was Dr. Baselga’s responsibility to disclose such relationships to entities such as medical journals. The cancer center, she said, “has a rigorous and comprehensive compliance program in place to promote honesty and objectivity in scientific research.”

Asked if he planned to correct his disclosures, Dr. Baselga asked reporters what they would recommend. In a statement several days later, he said he would correct his conflict-of-interest reporting for 17 articles, including in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the publication he edits, Cancer Discovery. He said that he did not believe disclosure was required for dozens of other articles detailing early stages of research.

“I have spent my career caring for cancer patients and bringing new therapies to the clinic with the goal of extending and saving lives,” Dr. Baselga said in the statement. “While I have been inconsistent with disclosures and acknowledge that fact, that is a far cry from compromising my responsibilities as a physician, as a scientist and as a clinical leader.”
 

The corporate imprint on cancer research

Dr. Baselga, 59, supervises clinical operations at Memorial Sloan Kettering, one of the nation’s top cancer centers and wields influence over the lives of patients and companies wishing to conduct trials there. He was paid more than $1.5 million in compensation by the cancer center in 2016, according to the hospital’s latest available tax disclosures, but that does not include his consulting or board fees from outside companies.

Many top medical researchers have ties to the for-profit health care industry, and some overlap is seen as a good thing – after all, these are the companies charged with developing the drugs, medical devices and diagnostic tests of the future.

Dr. Baselga’s relationship to industry is extensive. In addition to sitting on the board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, he is a director of Varian Medical Systems, which sells radiation equipment and for whom Memorial Sloan Kettering is a client.

In all, Dr. Baselga has served on the boards of at least six companies since 2013, positions that have required him to assume a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of those companies, even as he oversees the cancer center’s medical operations.

The hospital and Dr. Baselga said steps had been taken to prevent him from having a say in any business between the cancer center and the companies on whose boards he sits.

The chief executive of Memorial Sloan Kettering, Craig B. Thompson, MD, settled lawsuits several years ago that were filed by the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and an affiliated research center. They contended that he hid research conducted while he was at Penn to start a new company, Agios Pharmaceuticals, and did not share the earnings. Dr. Thompson disputed the allegations. He now sits on the board of Merck, which manufactures Keytruda, a blockbuster cancer therapy.

Ms. Hickey said the cancer center cannot fulfill its charitable mission without working with industry. “We encourage collaboration and are proud that our work has led to the approval of novel, lifesaving cancer treatments for patients around the world,” she said.
 

Some disclosures are required; others aren’t

After the scandals a decade ago over lack of disclosure, the federal government began requiring drug and device manufacturers to publicly disclose payments to doctors in 2013.

From August 2013 through 2017, Dr. Baselga received nearly $3.5 million from nine companies, according to the federal Open Payments database, which compiles disclosures filed by drug and device companies.

Dr. Baselga has disclosed in other forums investments and advisory roles in biotech start-ups, but he declined to provide a tally of financial interests in those firms. Companies that have not received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for their products – projects still in the testing phases – do not have to report payments they make to doctors.

Serving on boards can be lucrative. In 2017, Dr. Baselga received $260,000 in cash and stock awards to sit on Varian’s board of directors, according to the company’s corporate filings.

ProPublica and the Times analyzed Dr. Baselga’s publications in medical journals since 2013, the year he joined Memorial Sloan Kettering. He failed to disclose any industry relationships in more than 100, or about 60% of the time, a figure that has increased with each passing year. Last year, he did not list any potential conflicts in 87% of the articles that he wrote or cowrote.

Dr. Baselga compiled a color-coded list of his articles and offered a different interpretation. Sixty-two of the papers for which he did not disclose any potential conflict represented “conceptual, basic laboratory or translational work,” and did not require one, he said. Questions could be raised about others, he said, but he added that most “had no clinical nor financial implications.” That left the 17 papers he plans to correct.

Early-stage research often carries financial weight because it helps companies decide whether to move ahead with a product. In about two-thirds of Dr. Baselga’s articles that lacked details of his industry ties, one or more of his coauthors listed theirs.

In 2015, Dr. Baselga published an article in the New England Journal about a Roche-sponsored trial of one of the company’s drugs, Zelboraf. Despite his financial ties to Roche, he declared that he had “nothing to disclose.” Fourteen of his coauthors reported ties to Roche.

Dr. Baselga defended the articles, saying that “these are high-quality manuscripts reporting on important clinical trials that led to a better understanding of cancer treatments.”

The guidelines enacted by most major medical journals and professional societies ask authors and presenters to list recent financial relationships that could pose a conflict.

But much of this reporting still relies on the honor system. A study in August in the journal JAMA Oncology found that one-third of authors in a sample of cancer trials did not report all payments from the studies’ sponsors.

“We don’t routinely check because we don’t have those kind of resources,” said Rita F. Redberg, MD, the editor of JAMA Internal Medicine, who has been critical of the influence of industry on medical practice. “We rely on trust and integrity. It’s kind of an assumed part of the professional relationship.”

Jennifer Zeis, a spokeswoman for the New England Journal of Medicine, said in an email that it had now asked Dr. Baselga to amend his disclosures. She said the journal planned to overhaul its tracking of industry relationships.

The AACR said it had begun an “extensive review” of the disclosure forms submitted by Dr. Baselga.

It said that it had never barred an author from publishing, and that “such an action would be necessary only in cases of egregious, consistent violations of the rules.”

Among the most prominent relationships that Dr. Baselga has often failed to disclose is with the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche and its United States subsidiary Genentech.

In June 2017, at the annual meeting of the ASCO in Chicago, Dr. Baselga spoke at a Roche-sponsored investor event about study results that the company had been counting on to persuade oncologists to move patients from Herceptin – which was facing competition from cheaper alternatives – to a combination treatment involving Herceptin and a newer, more expensive drug, Perjeta.

The results were so underwhelming that Roche’s stock fell 5 % on the news. One analyst described the results as a “lead balloon,” and an editorial in the New England Journal called it a “disappointment.”

Dr. Baselga, however, told analysts that critiques were “weird” and “strange.”

This June, at the same cancer conference, Dr. Baselga struck an upbeat note about the results of a Roche trial of the drug taselisib, saying in a blog post published on the cancer center website that the results were “incredibly exciting” while conceding the side effects from the drug were high.

That same day, Roche announced it was scrapping plans to develop the drug. The news was another disappointment involving the class of drugs called PI3K inhibitors, which is a major focus of Dr. Baselga’s current research.

In neither case did Dr. Baselga reveal that his ties to Roche and Genentech went beyond serving as a trial investigator. In 2014, Roche acquired Seragon, a cancer research company in which Dr. Baselga had an ownership stake, for $725 million. Dr. Baselga received more than $3 million in 2014 and 2015 for his stake in the company, according to the federal Open Payments database.

From 2013 to 2017, Roche also paid Dr. Baselga more than $50,000 in consulting fees, according to the database.

These details were not included in the conflict-of-interest statements that are required of all presenters at the ASCO conference, although he did disclose ownership interests and consulting relationships with several other companies in the prior two years.

ASCO said it would conduct an internal review of Dr. Baselga’s disclosures and would refer the findings to a panel.

Dr. Baselga said that he played no role in the Seragon acquisition and that he had cut ties with Roche since joining the board of a competitor, Bristol-Myers, in March. As for his presentations at the ASCO meetings in the last 2 years, he said he had also noted shortcomings in the studies.

The combination of Perjeta with Herceptin was later approved by the FDA for certain high-risk patients. As for taselisib, Dr. Baselga stands by his belief that the PI3K class of drugs will be an important target for fighting cancer.
 

Katie Thomas covers the pharmaceutical industry for the New York Times.

This article was produced in partnership with The New York Times.

One of the world’s top breast cancer doctors failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from drug and health care companies in recent years, omitting his financial ties from dozens of research articles in prestigious publications like the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet.

The researcher, José Baselga, MD, a towering figure in the cancer world, is the chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He has held board memberships or advisory roles with Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, among other corporations; has had a stake in start-ups testing cancer therapies; and played a key role in the development of breakthrough drugs that have revolutionized treatments for breast cancer.

According to an analysis by ProPublica and the New York Times, Dr. Baselga did not follow financial disclosure rules set by the American Association for Cancer Research when he was president of the group. He also left out payments he received from companies connected to cancer research in his articles published in the group’s journal, Cancer Discovery. At the same time, he has been one of the journal’s two editors in chief.

At a conference this year and before analysts in 2017, he put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials that many others considered disappointments, without disclosing his relationship to the company. Since 2014, he has received more than $3 million from Roche in consulting fees and for his stake in a company it acquired.

Dr. Baselga did not dispute his relationships with at least a dozen companies. In an interview, he said the disclosure lapses were unintentional.

He stressed that much of his industry work was publicly known although he declined to provide payment figures from his involvement with some biotech start-ups. “I acknowledge that there have been inconsistencies, but that’s what it is,” he said. “It’s not that I do not appreciate the importance.”

Dr. Baselga’s extensive corporate relationships – and his frequent failure to disclose them – illustrate how permeable the boundaries remain between academic research and industry, and how weakly reporting requirements are enforced by the medical journals and professional societies charged with policing them.

A decade ago, a series of scandals involving the secret influence of the pharmaceutical industry on drug research prompted the medical community to beef up its conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Ethicists worry that outside entanglements can shape the way studies are designed and medications are prescribed to patients, allowing bias to influence medical practice. Disclosing those connections allows the public, other scientists, and doctors to evaluate the research and weigh potential conflicts.

If leaders don’t follow the rules, then we don’t really have rules,” said Walid Gellad, MD, an of the department of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and director of its Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing. “It says that the rules don’t matter.”

The penalties for such ethical lapses are not severe. The cancer research group, the American Association for Cancer Research, warns authors who fill out disclosure forms for its journals that they face a 3-year ban on publishing if they are found to have financial relationships that they did not disclose. But the ban is not included in the conflict-of-interest policy posted on its website, and the group said no author had ever been barred.

Many journals and professional societies do not check conflicts and simply require authors to correct the record.

Officials at the AACR, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the New England Journal of Medicine said they were looking into Dr. Baselga’s omissions after inquiries from the Times and ProPublica. The Lancet declined to say whether it would look into the matter.

Christine Hickey, a spokeswoman for Memorial Sloan Kettering, said that Dr. Baselga had properly informed the hospital of his outside industry work and that it was Dr. Baselga’s responsibility to disclose such relationships to entities such as medical journals. The cancer center, she said, “has a rigorous and comprehensive compliance program in place to promote honesty and objectivity in scientific research.”

Asked if he planned to correct his disclosures, Dr. Baselga asked reporters what they would recommend. In a statement several days later, he said he would correct his conflict-of-interest reporting for 17 articles, including in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the publication he edits, Cancer Discovery. He said that he did not believe disclosure was required for dozens of other articles detailing early stages of research.

“I have spent my career caring for cancer patients and bringing new therapies to the clinic with the goal of extending and saving lives,” Dr. Baselga said in the statement. “While I have been inconsistent with disclosures and acknowledge that fact, that is a far cry from compromising my responsibilities as a physician, as a scientist and as a clinical leader.”
 

The corporate imprint on cancer research

Dr. Baselga, 59, supervises clinical operations at Memorial Sloan Kettering, one of the nation’s top cancer centers and wields influence over the lives of patients and companies wishing to conduct trials there. He was paid more than $1.5 million in compensation by the cancer center in 2016, according to the hospital’s latest available tax disclosures, but that does not include his consulting or board fees from outside companies.

Many top medical researchers have ties to the for-profit health care industry, and some overlap is seen as a good thing – after all, these are the companies charged with developing the drugs, medical devices and diagnostic tests of the future.

Dr. Baselga’s relationship to industry is extensive. In addition to sitting on the board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, he is a director of Varian Medical Systems, which sells radiation equipment and for whom Memorial Sloan Kettering is a client.

In all, Dr. Baselga has served on the boards of at least six companies since 2013, positions that have required him to assume a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of those companies, even as he oversees the cancer center’s medical operations.

The hospital and Dr. Baselga said steps had been taken to prevent him from having a say in any business between the cancer center and the companies on whose boards he sits.

The chief executive of Memorial Sloan Kettering, Craig B. Thompson, MD, settled lawsuits several years ago that were filed by the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and an affiliated research center. They contended that he hid research conducted while he was at Penn to start a new company, Agios Pharmaceuticals, and did not share the earnings. Dr. Thompson disputed the allegations. He now sits on the board of Merck, which manufactures Keytruda, a blockbuster cancer therapy.

Ms. Hickey said the cancer center cannot fulfill its charitable mission without working with industry. “We encourage collaboration and are proud that our work has led to the approval of novel, lifesaving cancer treatments for patients around the world,” she said.
 

Some disclosures are required; others aren’t

After the scandals a decade ago over lack of disclosure, the federal government began requiring drug and device manufacturers to publicly disclose payments to doctors in 2013.

From August 2013 through 2017, Dr. Baselga received nearly $3.5 million from nine companies, according to the federal Open Payments database, which compiles disclosures filed by drug and device companies.

Dr. Baselga has disclosed in other forums investments and advisory roles in biotech start-ups, but he declined to provide a tally of financial interests in those firms. Companies that have not received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for their products – projects still in the testing phases – do not have to report payments they make to doctors.

Serving on boards can be lucrative. In 2017, Dr. Baselga received $260,000 in cash and stock awards to sit on Varian’s board of directors, according to the company’s corporate filings.

ProPublica and the Times analyzed Dr. Baselga’s publications in medical journals since 2013, the year he joined Memorial Sloan Kettering. He failed to disclose any industry relationships in more than 100, or about 60% of the time, a figure that has increased with each passing year. Last year, he did not list any potential conflicts in 87% of the articles that he wrote or cowrote.

Dr. Baselga compiled a color-coded list of his articles and offered a different interpretation. Sixty-two of the papers for which he did not disclose any potential conflict represented “conceptual, basic laboratory or translational work,” and did not require one, he said. Questions could be raised about others, he said, but he added that most “had no clinical nor financial implications.” That left the 17 papers he plans to correct.

Early-stage research often carries financial weight because it helps companies decide whether to move ahead with a product. In about two-thirds of Dr. Baselga’s articles that lacked details of his industry ties, one or more of his coauthors listed theirs.

In 2015, Dr. Baselga published an article in the New England Journal about a Roche-sponsored trial of one of the company’s drugs, Zelboraf. Despite his financial ties to Roche, he declared that he had “nothing to disclose.” Fourteen of his coauthors reported ties to Roche.

Dr. Baselga defended the articles, saying that “these are high-quality manuscripts reporting on important clinical trials that led to a better understanding of cancer treatments.”

The guidelines enacted by most major medical journals and professional societies ask authors and presenters to list recent financial relationships that could pose a conflict.

But much of this reporting still relies on the honor system. A study in August in the journal JAMA Oncology found that one-third of authors in a sample of cancer trials did not report all payments from the studies’ sponsors.

“We don’t routinely check because we don’t have those kind of resources,” said Rita F. Redberg, MD, the editor of JAMA Internal Medicine, who has been critical of the influence of industry on medical practice. “We rely on trust and integrity. It’s kind of an assumed part of the professional relationship.”

Jennifer Zeis, a spokeswoman for the New England Journal of Medicine, said in an email that it had now asked Dr. Baselga to amend his disclosures. She said the journal planned to overhaul its tracking of industry relationships.

The AACR said it had begun an “extensive review” of the disclosure forms submitted by Dr. Baselga.

It said that it had never barred an author from publishing, and that “such an action would be necessary only in cases of egregious, consistent violations of the rules.”

Among the most prominent relationships that Dr. Baselga has often failed to disclose is with the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche and its United States subsidiary Genentech.

In June 2017, at the annual meeting of the ASCO in Chicago, Dr. Baselga spoke at a Roche-sponsored investor event about study results that the company had been counting on to persuade oncologists to move patients from Herceptin – which was facing competition from cheaper alternatives – to a combination treatment involving Herceptin and a newer, more expensive drug, Perjeta.

The results were so underwhelming that Roche’s stock fell 5 % on the news. One analyst described the results as a “lead balloon,” and an editorial in the New England Journal called it a “disappointment.”

Dr. Baselga, however, told analysts that critiques were “weird” and “strange.”

This June, at the same cancer conference, Dr. Baselga struck an upbeat note about the results of a Roche trial of the drug taselisib, saying in a blog post published on the cancer center website that the results were “incredibly exciting” while conceding the side effects from the drug were high.

That same day, Roche announced it was scrapping plans to develop the drug. The news was another disappointment involving the class of drugs called PI3K inhibitors, which is a major focus of Dr. Baselga’s current research.

In neither case did Dr. Baselga reveal that his ties to Roche and Genentech went beyond serving as a trial investigator. In 2014, Roche acquired Seragon, a cancer research company in which Dr. Baselga had an ownership stake, for $725 million. Dr. Baselga received more than $3 million in 2014 and 2015 for his stake in the company, according to the federal Open Payments database.

From 2013 to 2017, Roche also paid Dr. Baselga more than $50,000 in consulting fees, according to the database.

These details were not included in the conflict-of-interest statements that are required of all presenters at the ASCO conference, although he did disclose ownership interests and consulting relationships with several other companies in the prior two years.

ASCO said it would conduct an internal review of Dr. Baselga’s disclosures and would refer the findings to a panel.

Dr. Baselga said that he played no role in the Seragon acquisition and that he had cut ties with Roche since joining the board of a competitor, Bristol-Myers, in March. As for his presentations at the ASCO meetings in the last 2 years, he said he had also noted shortcomings in the studies.

The combination of Perjeta with Herceptin was later approved by the FDA for certain high-risk patients. As for taselisib, Dr. Baselga stands by his belief that the PI3K class of drugs will be an important target for fighting cancer.
 

Katie Thomas covers the pharmaceutical industry for the New York Times.

This article was produced in partnership with The New York Times.

One of the world’s top breast cancer doctors failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from drug and health care companies in recent years, omitting his financial ties from dozens of research articles in prestigious publications like the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet.

The researcher, José Baselga, MD, a towering figure in the cancer world, is the chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He has held board memberships or advisory roles with Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, among other corporations; has had a stake in start-ups testing cancer therapies; and played a key role in the development of breakthrough drugs that have revolutionized treatments for breast cancer.

According to an analysis by ProPublica and the New York Times, Dr. Baselga did not follow financial disclosure rules set by the American Association for Cancer Research when he was president of the group. He also left out payments he received from companies connected to cancer research in his articles published in the group’s journal, Cancer Discovery. At the same time, he has been one of the journal’s two editors in chief.

At a conference this year and before analysts in 2017, he put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials that many others considered disappointments, without disclosing his relationship to the company. Since 2014, he has received more than $3 million from Roche in consulting fees and for his stake in a company it acquired.

Dr. Baselga did not dispute his relationships with at least a dozen companies. In an interview, he said the disclosure lapses were unintentional.

He stressed that much of his industry work was publicly known although he declined to provide payment figures from his involvement with some biotech start-ups. “I acknowledge that there have been inconsistencies, but that’s what it is,” he said. “It’s not that I do not appreciate the importance.”

Dr. Baselga’s extensive corporate relationships – and his frequent failure to disclose them – illustrate how permeable the boundaries remain between academic research and industry, and how weakly reporting requirements are enforced by the medical journals and professional societies charged with policing them.

A decade ago, a series of scandals involving the secret influence of the pharmaceutical industry on drug research prompted the medical community to beef up its conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Ethicists worry that outside entanglements can shape the way studies are designed and medications are prescribed to patients, allowing bias to influence medical practice. Disclosing those connections allows the public, other scientists, and doctors to evaluate the research and weigh potential conflicts.

If leaders don’t follow the rules, then we don’t really have rules,” said Walid Gellad, MD, an of the department of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and director of its Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing. “It says that the rules don’t matter.”

The penalties for such ethical lapses are not severe. The cancer research group, the American Association for Cancer Research, warns authors who fill out disclosure forms for its journals that they face a 3-year ban on publishing if they are found to have financial relationships that they did not disclose. But the ban is not included in the conflict-of-interest policy posted on its website, and the group said no author had ever been barred.

Many journals and professional societies do not check conflicts and simply require authors to correct the record.

Officials at the AACR, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the New England Journal of Medicine said they were looking into Dr. Baselga’s omissions after inquiries from the Times and ProPublica. The Lancet declined to say whether it would look into the matter.

Christine Hickey, a spokeswoman for Memorial Sloan Kettering, said that Dr. Baselga had properly informed the hospital of his outside industry work and that it was Dr. Baselga’s responsibility to disclose such relationships to entities such as medical journals. The cancer center, she said, “has a rigorous and comprehensive compliance program in place to promote honesty and objectivity in scientific research.”

Asked if he planned to correct his disclosures, Dr. Baselga asked reporters what they would recommend. In a statement several days later, he said he would correct his conflict-of-interest reporting for 17 articles, including in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the publication he edits, Cancer Discovery. He said that he did not believe disclosure was required for dozens of other articles detailing early stages of research.

“I have spent my career caring for cancer patients and bringing new therapies to the clinic with the goal of extending and saving lives,” Dr. Baselga said in the statement. “While I have been inconsistent with disclosures and acknowledge that fact, that is a far cry from compromising my responsibilities as a physician, as a scientist and as a clinical leader.”
 

The corporate imprint on cancer research

Dr. Baselga, 59, supervises clinical operations at Memorial Sloan Kettering, one of the nation’s top cancer centers and wields influence over the lives of patients and companies wishing to conduct trials there. He was paid more than $1.5 million in compensation by the cancer center in 2016, according to the hospital’s latest available tax disclosures, but that does not include his consulting or board fees from outside companies.

Many top medical researchers have ties to the for-profit health care industry, and some overlap is seen as a good thing – after all, these are the companies charged with developing the drugs, medical devices and diagnostic tests of the future.

Dr. Baselga’s relationship to industry is extensive. In addition to sitting on the board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, he is a director of Varian Medical Systems, which sells radiation equipment and for whom Memorial Sloan Kettering is a client.

In all, Dr. Baselga has served on the boards of at least six companies since 2013, positions that have required him to assume a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of those companies, even as he oversees the cancer center’s medical operations.

The hospital and Dr. Baselga said steps had been taken to prevent him from having a say in any business between the cancer center and the companies on whose boards he sits.

The chief executive of Memorial Sloan Kettering, Craig B. Thompson, MD, settled lawsuits several years ago that were filed by the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and an affiliated research center. They contended that he hid research conducted while he was at Penn to start a new company, Agios Pharmaceuticals, and did not share the earnings. Dr. Thompson disputed the allegations. He now sits on the board of Merck, which manufactures Keytruda, a blockbuster cancer therapy.

Ms. Hickey said the cancer center cannot fulfill its charitable mission without working with industry. “We encourage collaboration and are proud that our work has led to the approval of novel, lifesaving cancer treatments for patients around the world,” she said.
 

Some disclosures are required; others aren’t

After the scandals a decade ago over lack of disclosure, the federal government began requiring drug and device manufacturers to publicly disclose payments to doctors in 2013.

From August 2013 through 2017, Dr. Baselga received nearly $3.5 million from nine companies, according to the federal Open Payments database, which compiles disclosures filed by drug and device companies.

Dr. Baselga has disclosed in other forums investments and advisory roles in biotech start-ups, but he declined to provide a tally of financial interests in those firms. Companies that have not received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for their products – projects still in the testing phases – do not have to report payments they make to doctors.

Serving on boards can be lucrative. In 2017, Dr. Baselga received $260,000 in cash and stock awards to sit on Varian’s board of directors, according to the company’s corporate filings.

ProPublica and the Times analyzed Dr. Baselga’s publications in medical journals since 2013, the year he joined Memorial Sloan Kettering. He failed to disclose any industry relationships in more than 100, or about 60% of the time, a figure that has increased with each passing year. Last year, he did not list any potential conflicts in 87% of the articles that he wrote or cowrote.

Dr. Baselga compiled a color-coded list of his articles and offered a different interpretation. Sixty-two of the papers for which he did not disclose any potential conflict represented “conceptual, basic laboratory or translational work,” and did not require one, he said. Questions could be raised about others, he said, but he added that most “had no clinical nor financial implications.” That left the 17 papers he plans to correct.

Early-stage research often carries financial weight because it helps companies decide whether to move ahead with a product. In about two-thirds of Dr. Baselga’s articles that lacked details of his industry ties, one or more of his coauthors listed theirs.

In 2015, Dr. Baselga published an article in the New England Journal about a Roche-sponsored trial of one of the company’s drugs, Zelboraf. Despite his financial ties to Roche, he declared that he had “nothing to disclose.” Fourteen of his coauthors reported ties to Roche.

Dr. Baselga defended the articles, saying that “these are high-quality manuscripts reporting on important clinical trials that led to a better understanding of cancer treatments.”

The guidelines enacted by most major medical journals and professional societies ask authors and presenters to list recent financial relationships that could pose a conflict.

But much of this reporting still relies on the honor system. A study in August in the journal JAMA Oncology found that one-third of authors in a sample of cancer trials did not report all payments from the studies’ sponsors.

“We don’t routinely check because we don’t have those kind of resources,” said Rita F. Redberg, MD, the editor of JAMA Internal Medicine, who has been critical of the influence of industry on medical practice. “We rely on trust and integrity. It’s kind of an assumed part of the professional relationship.”

Jennifer Zeis, a spokeswoman for the New England Journal of Medicine, said in an email that it had now asked Dr. Baselga to amend his disclosures. She said the journal planned to overhaul its tracking of industry relationships.

The AACR said it had begun an “extensive review” of the disclosure forms submitted by Dr. Baselga.

It said that it had never barred an author from publishing, and that “such an action would be necessary only in cases of egregious, consistent violations of the rules.”

Among the most prominent relationships that Dr. Baselga has often failed to disclose is with the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche and its United States subsidiary Genentech.

In June 2017, at the annual meeting of the ASCO in Chicago, Dr. Baselga spoke at a Roche-sponsored investor event about study results that the company had been counting on to persuade oncologists to move patients from Herceptin – which was facing competition from cheaper alternatives – to a combination treatment involving Herceptin and a newer, more expensive drug, Perjeta.

The results were so underwhelming that Roche’s stock fell 5 % on the news. One analyst described the results as a “lead balloon,” and an editorial in the New England Journal called it a “disappointment.”

Dr. Baselga, however, told analysts that critiques were “weird” and “strange.”

This June, at the same cancer conference, Dr. Baselga struck an upbeat note about the results of a Roche trial of the drug taselisib, saying in a blog post published on the cancer center website that the results were “incredibly exciting” while conceding the side effects from the drug were high.

That same day, Roche announced it was scrapping plans to develop the drug. The news was another disappointment involving the class of drugs called PI3K inhibitors, which is a major focus of Dr. Baselga’s current research.

In neither case did Dr. Baselga reveal that his ties to Roche and Genentech went beyond serving as a trial investigator. In 2014, Roche acquired Seragon, a cancer research company in which Dr. Baselga had an ownership stake, for $725 million. Dr. Baselga received more than $3 million in 2014 and 2015 for his stake in the company, according to the federal Open Payments database.

From 2013 to 2017, Roche also paid Dr. Baselga more than $50,000 in consulting fees, according to the database.

These details were not included in the conflict-of-interest statements that are required of all presenters at the ASCO conference, although he did disclose ownership interests and consulting relationships with several other companies in the prior two years.

ASCO said it would conduct an internal review of Dr. Baselga’s disclosures and would refer the findings to a panel.

Dr. Baselga said that he played no role in the Seragon acquisition and that he had cut ties with Roche since joining the board of a competitor, Bristol-Myers, in March. As for his presentations at the ASCO meetings in the last 2 years, he said he had also noted shortcomings in the studies.

The combination of Perjeta with Herceptin was later approved by the FDA for certain high-risk patients. As for taselisib, Dr. Baselga stands by his belief that the PI3K class of drugs will be an important target for fighting cancer.
 

Katie Thomas covers the pharmaceutical industry for the New York Times.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has published a proposed scale that would rank molecular targets for various cancers by how well they can be treated with new or emerging drugs.

The ESMO Scale of Clinical Actionability for Molecular Targets is designed to “harmonize and standardize the reporting and interpretation of clinically relevant genomics data,” according to Joaquin Mateo, MD, PhD, from the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain, and his fellow members of the ESMO Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group.

“A major challenge for oncologists in the clinic is to distinguish between findings that represent proven clinical value or potential value based on preliminary clinical or preclinical evidence from hypothetical gene-drug matches and findings that are currently irrelevant for clinical practice,” they wrote in Annals of Oncology.

The scale groups targets into one of six tiers based on levels of evidence ranging from the gold standard of prospective, randomized clinical trials to targets for which there are no evidence and only hypothetical actionability. The primary goal is to help oncologists assign priority to potential targets when they review results of gene-sequencing panels for individual patients, according to the developers.

Briefly, the six tiers are:

Tier I includes targets that are agreed to be suitable for routine use and a recommended specific drug when a specific molecular alteration is detected. Examples include trastuzumab for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancer, and inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer positive for EGFR mutations.

Tier II includes “investigational targets that likely define a patient population that benefits from a targeted drug but additional data are needed.” This tier includes agents that work in the phosphatidylinostiol 3-kinase pathway.

Tier III is similar to Tier II, in that it includes investigational targets that define a patient population with proven benefit from a targeted therapy, but in this case the target is detected in a different tumor type that has not previously been studied. For example, the targeted agent vemurafenib (Zelboraf), which extends survival of patients with metastatic melanomas carrying the BRAF V600E mutation, has only limited activity against BRAF-mutated colorectal cancers.

Tier IV includes targets with preclinical evidence of actionability.

Tier V includes targets with “evidence of relevant antitumor activity, not resulting in clinical meaningful benefit as single treatment but supporting development of cotargeting approaches.” The authors cite the example of PIK3CA inhibitors in patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancers who also have PIK3CA activating mutations. In clinical trials, this strategy led to objective responses but not change outcomes.

The final tier is not Tier VI, as might be expected, but Tier X, with the X in this case being the unknown – that is, alterations/mutations for which there is neither preclinical nor clinical evidence to support their hypothetical use as a drug target.

“This clinical benefit–centered classification system offers a common language for all the actors involved in clinical cancer drug development. Its implementation in sequencing reports, tumor boards, and scientific communication can enable precise treatment decisions and facilitate discussions with patients about novel therapeutic options,” Dr. Mateo and his associates wrote in their conclusion.

The development process was supported by ESMO. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with various companies as well as grants/support from other foundations or charities.

SOURCE: Mateo J et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 21. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy263.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has published a proposed scale that would rank molecular targets for various cancers by how well they can be treated with new or emerging drugs.

The ESMO Scale of Clinical Actionability for Molecular Targets is designed to “harmonize and standardize the reporting and interpretation of clinically relevant genomics data,” according to Joaquin Mateo, MD, PhD, from the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain, and his fellow members of the ESMO Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group.

“A major challenge for oncologists in the clinic is to distinguish between findings that represent proven clinical value or potential value based on preliminary clinical or preclinical evidence from hypothetical gene-drug matches and findings that are currently irrelevant for clinical practice,” they wrote in Annals of Oncology.

The scale groups targets into one of six tiers based on levels of evidence ranging from the gold standard of prospective, randomized clinical trials to targets for which there are no evidence and only hypothetical actionability. The primary goal is to help oncologists assign priority to potential targets when they review results of gene-sequencing panels for individual patients, according to the developers.

Briefly, the six tiers are:

Tier I includes targets that are agreed to be suitable for routine use and a recommended specific drug when a specific molecular alteration is detected. Examples include trastuzumab for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancer, and inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer positive for EGFR mutations.

Tier II includes “investigational targets that likely define a patient population that benefits from a targeted drug but additional data are needed.” This tier includes agents that work in the phosphatidylinostiol 3-kinase pathway.

Tier III is similar to Tier II, in that it includes investigational targets that define a patient population with proven benefit from a targeted therapy, but in this case the target is detected in a different tumor type that has not previously been studied. For example, the targeted agent vemurafenib (Zelboraf), which extends survival of patients with metastatic melanomas carrying the BRAF V600E mutation, has only limited activity against BRAF-mutated colorectal cancers.

Tier IV includes targets with preclinical evidence of actionability.

Tier V includes targets with “evidence of relevant antitumor activity, not resulting in clinical meaningful benefit as single treatment but supporting development of cotargeting approaches.” The authors cite the example of PIK3CA inhibitors in patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancers who also have PIK3CA activating mutations. In clinical trials, this strategy led to objective responses but not change outcomes.

The final tier is not Tier VI, as might be expected, but Tier X, with the X in this case being the unknown – that is, alterations/mutations for which there is neither preclinical nor clinical evidence to support their hypothetical use as a drug target.

“This clinical benefit–centered classification system offers a common language for all the actors involved in clinical cancer drug development. Its implementation in sequencing reports, tumor boards, and scientific communication can enable precise treatment decisions and facilitate discussions with patients about novel therapeutic options,” Dr. Mateo and his associates wrote in their conclusion.

The development process was supported by ESMO. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with various companies as well as grants/support from other foundations or charities.

SOURCE: Mateo J et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 21. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy263.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has published a proposed scale that would rank molecular targets for various cancers by how well they can be treated with new or emerging drugs.

The ESMO Scale of Clinical Actionability for Molecular Targets is designed to “harmonize and standardize the reporting and interpretation of clinically relevant genomics data,” according to Joaquin Mateo, MD, PhD, from the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain, and his fellow members of the ESMO Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group.

“A major challenge for oncologists in the clinic is to distinguish between findings that represent proven clinical value or potential value based on preliminary clinical or preclinical evidence from hypothetical gene-drug matches and findings that are currently irrelevant for clinical practice,” they wrote in Annals of Oncology.

The scale groups targets into one of six tiers based on levels of evidence ranging from the gold standard of prospective, randomized clinical trials to targets for which there are no evidence and only hypothetical actionability. The primary goal is to help oncologists assign priority to potential targets when they review results of gene-sequencing panels for individual patients, according to the developers.

Briefly, the six tiers are:

Tier I includes targets that are agreed to be suitable for routine use and a recommended specific drug when a specific molecular alteration is detected. Examples include trastuzumab for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancer, and inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer positive for EGFR mutations.

Tier II includes “investigational targets that likely define a patient population that benefits from a targeted drug but additional data are needed.” This tier includes agents that work in the phosphatidylinostiol 3-kinase pathway.

Tier III is similar to Tier II, in that it includes investigational targets that define a patient population with proven benefit from a targeted therapy, but in this case the target is detected in a different tumor type that has not previously been studied. For example, the targeted agent vemurafenib (Zelboraf), which extends survival of patients with metastatic melanomas carrying the BRAF V600E mutation, has only limited activity against BRAF-mutated colorectal cancers.

Tier IV includes targets with preclinical evidence of actionability.

Tier V includes targets with “evidence of relevant antitumor activity, not resulting in clinical meaningful benefit as single treatment but supporting development of cotargeting approaches.” The authors cite the example of PIK3CA inhibitors in patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancers who also have PIK3CA activating mutations. In clinical trials, this strategy led to objective responses but not change outcomes.

The final tier is not Tier VI, as might be expected, but Tier X, with the X in this case being the unknown – that is, alterations/mutations for which there is neither preclinical nor clinical evidence to support their hypothetical use as a drug target.

“This clinical benefit–centered classification system offers a common language for all the actors involved in clinical cancer drug development. Its implementation in sequencing reports, tumor boards, and scientific communication can enable precise treatment decisions and facilitate discussions with patients about novel therapeutic options,” Dr. Mateo and his associates wrote in their conclusion.

The development process was supported by ESMO. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with various companies as well as grants/support from other foundations or charities.

SOURCE: Mateo J et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 21. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy263.

Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer: $15M award

A woman in her mid-50s had been seen by a breast surgeon for 16 years for regular mammograms and sonograms. In May 2009, the breast surgeon misinterpreted a mammogram as negative, as did a radiologist who re-read the mammogram weeks later. In December 2010, the patient returned to the breast surgeon with nipple discharge. No further testing was conducted. In October 2011, the patient was found to have Stage IIIA breast cancer involving 4 lymph nodes. She underwent left radical mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and breast reconstruction. At time of trial, the cancer had invaded her vertebrae, was Stage IV, and most likely incurable.

PATIENT'S CLAIM: Although the surgeon admittedly did not possess the qualifications required under the Mammography Quality Standards Act, he interpreted about 5,000 mammograms per year in his office. In this case, he failed to detect a small breast tumor in May 2009. He also failed to perform testing when the patient reported nipple discharge. A more timely diagnosis of breast cancer at Stage I would have provided a 90% chance of long-term survival.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE: The defense held the radiologist fully liable because the surgeon was not a qualified interpreter of mammography, therefore relying on the radiologist’s interpretation. The radiologist was legally responsible for the missed diagnosis.

VERDICT: A $15M New York verdict was reached, finding the breast surgeon 75% at fault and the radiologist 25%. The radiologist settled before the trial (the jury was not informed of this). The breast surgeon was responsible for $11.25M. The defense indicated intent to appeal.

Alleged failure to evacuate uterus after cesarean delivery

A 37-year-old woman underwent cesarean delivery (CD) performed by 2 ObGyns. After delivery, she began to hemorrhage and the uterus became atonic. Hysterectomy was performed but the bleeding did not stop. The ObGyns called in 3 other ObGyns. During exploratory laparotomy, the bleeding was halted.

PATIENT'S CLAIM: She and her husband had hoped to have more children but the hysterectomy precluded that. She sued all 5 ObGyns, alleging that the delivering ObGyns failed to properly perform the CD and that each physician failed to properly perform the laparotomy, causing a large scar. The claim was discontinued against the 3 surgical ObGyns; trial addressed the 2 delivering ObGyns.

The patient’s expert ObGyn remarked that the hemorrhage was caused by a small placental remnant that remained in the uterus as a result of inadequate evacuation following delivery. The presence of the remnant was indicated by the uterine atony and should have prompted immediate investigation. The physicians’ notes did not document exploration of the uterus prior to closure.

PHYSICIAN'S DEFENSE: The defense’s expert contended that atony would not be a result of a small remnant of placenta. The patient’s uterus was properly evacuated, the hemorrhage was an unforeseeable complication, and the ObGyns properly addressed the hemorrhage.

VERDICT: A New York defense verdict was returned.

Alleged bowel injury during hysterectomy

Two days after a woman underwent a hysterectomy performed by her ObGyn, she went to the emergency department with increasing pain. Her ObGyn admitted her to the hospital. A general surgeon performed an exploratory laparotomy the next day that revealed an abscess; a 1-cm perforation of the patient’s bowel was surgically repaired. The patient had a difficult recovery. She developed pneumonia and respiratory failure. She underwent multiple repair surgeries for recurrent abscesses and fistulas because the wound was slow to heal.

PATIENT'S CLAIM: The ObGyn’s surgical technique was negligent. He injured the bowel when inserting a trocar and did not identify the injury in a timely manner. The expert witness commented that such an injury can sometimes be a surgical complication, but not in this case: the ObGyn rushed the procedure because he had another patient waiting for CD at another hospital.

PHYSICIAN'S DEFENSE: The ObGyn denied negligence and contended that the trocar used in surgery was too blunt to have caused a perforation. It would have been obvious to the ObGyn during surgery if a perforation had occurred. The perforation developed days after surgery within an abscess.

VERDICT: A Mississippi defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer: $15M award

A woman in her mid-50s had been seen by a breast surgeon for 16 years for regular mammograms and sonograms. In May 2009, the breast surgeon misinterpreted a mammogram as negative, as did a radiologist who re-read the mammogram weeks later. In December 2010, the patient returned to the breast surgeon with nipple discharge. No further testing was conducted. In October 2011, the patient was found to have Stage IIIA breast cancer involving 4 lymph nodes. She underwent left radical mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and breast reconstruction. At time of trial, the cancer had invaded her vertebrae, was Stage IV, and most likely incurable.

PATIENT'S CLAIM: Although the surgeon admittedly did not possess the qualifications required under the Mammography Quality Standards Act, he interpreted about 5,000 mammograms per year in his office. In this case, he failed to detect a small breast tumor in May 2009. He also failed to perform testing when the patient reported nipple discharge. A more timely diagnosis of breast cancer at Stage I would have provided a 90% chance of long-term survival.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE: The defense held the radiologist fully liable because the surgeon was not a qualified interpreter of mammography, therefore relying on the radiologist’s interpretation. The radiologist was legally responsible for the missed diagnosis.

VERDICT: A $15M New York verdict was reached, finding the breast surgeon 75% at fault and the radiologist 25%. The radiologist settled before the trial (the jury was not informed of this). The breast surgeon was responsible for $11.25M. The defense indicated intent to appeal.

Alleged failure to evacuate uterus after cesarean delivery

A 37-year-old woman underwent cesarean delivery (CD) performed by 2 ObGyns. After delivery, she began to hemorrhage and the uterus became atonic. Hysterectomy was performed but the bleeding did not stop. The ObGyns called in 3 other ObGyns. During exploratory laparotomy, the bleeding was halted.

PATIENT'S CLAIM: She and her husband had hoped to have more children but the hysterectomy precluded that. She sued all 5 ObGyns, alleging that the delivering ObGyns failed to properly perform the CD and that each physician failed to properly perform the laparotomy, causing a large scar. The claim was discontinued against the 3 surgical ObGyns; trial addressed the 2 delivering ObGyns.

The patient’s expert ObGyn remarked that the hemorrhage was caused by a small placental remnant that remained in the uterus as a result of inadequate evacuation following delivery. The presence of the remnant was indicated by the uterine atony and should have prompted immediate investigation. The physicians’ notes did not document exploration of the uterus prior to closure.

PHYSICIAN'S DEFENSE: The defense’s expert contended that atony would not be a result of a small remnant of placenta. The patient’s uterus was properly evacuated, the hemorrhage was an unforeseeable complication, and the ObGyns properly addressed the hemorrhage.

VERDICT: A New York defense verdict was returned.

Alleged bowel injury during hysterectomy

Two days after a woman underwent a hysterectomy performed by her ObGyn, she went to the emergency department with increasing pain. Her ObGyn admitted her to the hospital. A general surgeon performed an exploratory laparotomy the next day that revealed an abscess; a 1-cm perforation of the patient’s bowel was surgically repaired. The patient had a difficult recovery. She developed pneumonia and respiratory failure. She underwent multiple repair surgeries for recurrent abscesses and fistulas because the wound was slow to heal.

PATIENT'S CLAIM: The ObGyn’s surgical technique was negligent. He injured the bowel when inserting a trocar and did not identify the injury in a timely manner. The expert witness commented that such an injury can sometimes be a surgical complication, but not in this case: the ObGyn rushed the procedure because he had another patient waiting for CD at another hospital.

PHYSICIAN'S DEFENSE: The ObGyn denied negligence and contended that the trocar used in surgery was too blunt to have caused a perforation. It would have been obvious to the ObGyn during surgery if a perforation had occurred. The perforation developed days after surgery within an abscess.

VERDICT: A Mississippi defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer: $15M award

A woman in her mid-50s had been seen by a breast surgeon for 16 years for regular mammograms and sonograms. In May 2009, the breast surgeon misinterpreted a mammogram as negative, as did a radiologist who re-read the mammogram weeks later. In December 2010, the patient returned to the breast surgeon with nipple discharge. No further testing was conducted. In October 2011, the patient was found to have Stage IIIA breast cancer involving 4 lymph nodes. She underwent left radical mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and breast reconstruction. At time of trial, the cancer had invaded her vertebrae, was Stage IV, and most likely incurable.

PATIENT'S CLAIM: Although the surgeon admittedly did not possess the qualifications required under the Mammography Quality Standards Act, he interpreted about 5,000 mammograms per year in his office. In this case, he failed to detect a small breast tumor in May 2009. He also failed to perform testing when the patient reported nipple discharge. A more timely diagnosis of breast cancer at Stage I would have provided a 90% chance of long-term survival.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE: The defense held the radiologist fully liable because the surgeon was not a qualified interpreter of mammography, therefore relying on the radiologist’s interpretation. The radiologist was legally responsible for the missed diagnosis.

VERDICT: A $15M New York verdict was reached, finding the breast surgeon 75% at fault and the radiologist 25%. The radiologist settled before the trial (the jury was not informed of this). The breast surgeon was responsible for $11.25M. The defense indicated intent to appeal.

Alleged failure to evacuate uterus after cesarean delivery

A 37-year-old woman underwent cesarean delivery (CD) performed by 2 ObGyns. After delivery, she began to hemorrhage and the uterus became atonic. Hysterectomy was performed but the bleeding did not stop. The ObGyns called in 3 other ObGyns. During exploratory laparotomy, the bleeding was halted.

PATIENT'S CLAIM: She and her husband had hoped to have more children but the hysterectomy precluded that. She sued all 5 ObGyns, alleging that the delivering ObGyns failed to properly perform the CD and that each physician failed to properly perform the laparotomy, causing a large scar. The claim was discontinued against the 3 surgical ObGyns; trial addressed the 2 delivering ObGyns.

The patient’s expert ObGyn remarked that the hemorrhage was caused by a small placental remnant that remained in the uterus as a result of inadequate evacuation following delivery. The presence of the remnant was indicated by the uterine atony and should have prompted immediate investigation. The physicians’ notes did not document exploration of the uterus prior to closure.

PHYSICIAN'S DEFENSE: The defense’s expert contended that atony would not be a result of a small remnant of placenta. The patient’s uterus was properly evacuated, the hemorrhage was an unforeseeable complication, and the ObGyns properly addressed the hemorrhage.

VERDICT: A New York defense verdict was returned.

Alleged bowel injury during hysterectomy

Two days after a woman underwent a hysterectomy performed by her ObGyn, she went to the emergency department with increasing pain. Her ObGyn admitted her to the hospital. A general surgeon performed an exploratory laparotomy the next day that revealed an abscess; a 1-cm perforation of the patient’s bowel was surgically repaired. The patient had a difficult recovery. She developed pneumonia and respiratory failure. She underwent multiple repair surgeries for recurrent abscesses and fistulas because the wound was slow to heal.

PATIENT'S CLAIM: The ObGyn’s surgical technique was negligent. He injured the bowel when inserting a trocar and did not identify the injury in a timely manner. The expert witness commented that such an injury can sometimes be a surgical complication, but not in this case: the ObGyn rushed the procedure because he had another patient waiting for CD at another hospital.

PHYSICIAN'S DEFENSE: The ObGyn denied negligence and contended that the trocar used in surgery was too blunt to have caused a perforation. It would have been obvious to the ObGyn during surgery if a perforation had occurred. The perforation developed days after surgery within an abscess.

VERDICT: A Mississippi defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.