Cancer

Nearly 1 in 5 women who receive the recommended 10 biennial screening rounds for breast cancer in Norway will get a false positive result, and 1 in 20 women will receive a false positive result that leads to an invasive procedure, a new analysis shows.

While the risk may seem high, it is actually much lower than what researchers have reported in the U.S., the study authors note in their paper, published online Dec. 21 in Cancer.

“I am proud about the low rate of recalls we have in Norway and Europe – and hope we can keep it that low for the future,” said senior author Solveig Hofvind, PhD, head of BreastScreen Norway, a nationwide screening program that invites women aged 50 to 69 to mammographic screening every other year.

“The double reading in Europe is probably the main reason for the lower rate in Europe compared to the U.S., where single reading is used,” she said in an interview.

Until now, Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues say, no studies have been performed using exclusively empirical data to describe the cumulative risk of experiencing a false positive screening result in Europe because of the need for long-term follow-up and complete data registration.

For their study, the researchers turned to the Cancer Registry of Norway, which administers BreastScreen Norway. They focused on data from 1995 to 2019 on women aged 50 to 69 years who had attended one or more screening rounds and could potentially attend all 10 screening examinations over the 20-year period.

Women were excluded if they were diagnosed with breast cancer before attending screening, participated in interventional research, self-referred for screening, were recalled due to self-reported symptoms or technically inadequate mammograms, or declined follow-up after a positive screen.

Among more than 421,000 women who underwent nearly 1.9 million screening examinations, 11.3% experienced at least one false positive result and 3.3% experienced at least one false positive involving an invasive procedure, such as fine-needle aspiration cytology, core-needle biopsy, or open biopsy.

The cumulative risk of experiencing a first false positive screen was 18.0% and that of experiencing a false positive that involved an invasive procedure was 5.01%. Adjusting for irregular attendance, age at screening, or the number of screens attended had little effect on the estimates.

The results closely match earlier findings from Norway that have been based on assumptions rather than exclusively empirical data. However, these findings differ from results reported in U.S. studies, which have relied largely on data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, the researchers say.

“The latter have indicated that, for women who initiate biennial screening at the age of 50 years, the cumulative risk after 10 years is 42% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result and 6.4% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result involving an invasive procedure,” Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues write.

Several principal investigators with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium did not respond or were unavailable for comment when contacted by this news organization.

However, the study authors highlighted several factors that could help explain the discrepancy between the U.S. and European results.

In addition to double mammogram reading, “European guidelines recommend that breast radiologists read 3,500 to 11,000 mammograms annually, whereas 960 every 2 years are required by the U.S. Mammography Quality Standards Act,” the researchers note. They also point out that previous screening mammograms are readily available in Norway, whereas this is not always the case in the U.S.

“False-positive screening results are a part of the screening for breast cancer – and the women need to be informed about the risk,” Dr. Hofvind concluded. “The screening programs should aim to keep the rate as low as possible for the women [given] the costs.”

The study was supported by the Dam Foundation via the Norwegian Breast Cancer Society.

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

Nearly 1 in 5 women who receive the recommended 10 biennial screening rounds for breast cancer in Norway will get a false positive result, and 1 in 20 women will receive a false positive result that leads to an invasive procedure, a new analysis shows.

While the risk may seem high, it is actually much lower than what researchers have reported in the U.S., the study authors note in their paper, published online Dec. 21 in Cancer.

“I am proud about the low rate of recalls we have in Norway and Europe – and hope we can keep it that low for the future,” said senior author Solveig Hofvind, PhD, head of BreastScreen Norway, a nationwide screening program that invites women aged 50 to 69 to mammographic screening every other year.

“The double reading in Europe is probably the main reason for the lower rate in Europe compared to the U.S., where single reading is used,” she said in an interview.

Until now, Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues say, no studies have been performed using exclusively empirical data to describe the cumulative risk of experiencing a false positive screening result in Europe because of the need for long-term follow-up and complete data registration.

For their study, the researchers turned to the Cancer Registry of Norway, which administers BreastScreen Norway. They focused on data from 1995 to 2019 on women aged 50 to 69 years who had attended one or more screening rounds and could potentially attend all 10 screening examinations over the 20-year period.

Women were excluded if they were diagnosed with breast cancer before attending screening, participated in interventional research, self-referred for screening, were recalled due to self-reported symptoms or technically inadequate mammograms, or declined follow-up after a positive screen.

Among more than 421,000 women who underwent nearly 1.9 million screening examinations, 11.3% experienced at least one false positive result and 3.3% experienced at least one false positive involving an invasive procedure, such as fine-needle aspiration cytology, core-needle biopsy, or open biopsy.

The cumulative risk of experiencing a first false positive screen was 18.0% and that of experiencing a false positive that involved an invasive procedure was 5.01%. Adjusting for irregular attendance, age at screening, or the number of screens attended had little effect on the estimates.

The results closely match earlier findings from Norway that have been based on assumptions rather than exclusively empirical data. However, these findings differ from results reported in U.S. studies, which have relied largely on data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, the researchers say.

“The latter have indicated that, for women who initiate biennial screening at the age of 50 years, the cumulative risk after 10 years is 42% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result and 6.4% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result involving an invasive procedure,” Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues write.

Several principal investigators with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium did not respond or were unavailable for comment when contacted by this news organization.

However, the study authors highlighted several factors that could help explain the discrepancy between the U.S. and European results.

In addition to double mammogram reading, “European guidelines recommend that breast radiologists read 3,500 to 11,000 mammograms annually, whereas 960 every 2 years are required by the U.S. Mammography Quality Standards Act,” the researchers note. They also point out that previous screening mammograms are readily available in Norway, whereas this is not always the case in the U.S.

“False-positive screening results are a part of the screening for breast cancer – and the women need to be informed about the risk,” Dr. Hofvind concluded. “The screening programs should aim to keep the rate as low as possible for the women [given] the costs.”

The study was supported by the Dam Foundation via the Norwegian Breast Cancer Society.

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

Nearly 1 in 5 women who receive the recommended 10 biennial screening rounds for breast cancer in Norway will get a false positive result, and 1 in 20 women will receive a false positive result that leads to an invasive procedure, a new analysis shows.

While the risk may seem high, it is actually much lower than what researchers have reported in the U.S., the study authors note in their paper, published online Dec. 21 in Cancer.

“I am proud about the low rate of recalls we have in Norway and Europe – and hope we can keep it that low for the future,” said senior author Solveig Hofvind, PhD, head of BreastScreen Norway, a nationwide screening program that invites women aged 50 to 69 to mammographic screening every other year.

“The double reading in Europe is probably the main reason for the lower rate in Europe compared to the U.S., where single reading is used,” she said in an interview.

Until now, Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues say, no studies have been performed using exclusively empirical data to describe the cumulative risk of experiencing a false positive screening result in Europe because of the need for long-term follow-up and complete data registration.

For their study, the researchers turned to the Cancer Registry of Norway, which administers BreastScreen Norway. They focused on data from 1995 to 2019 on women aged 50 to 69 years who had attended one or more screening rounds and could potentially attend all 10 screening examinations over the 20-year period.

Women were excluded if they were diagnosed with breast cancer before attending screening, participated in interventional research, self-referred for screening, were recalled due to self-reported symptoms or technically inadequate mammograms, or declined follow-up after a positive screen.

Among more than 421,000 women who underwent nearly 1.9 million screening examinations, 11.3% experienced at least one false positive result and 3.3% experienced at least one false positive involving an invasive procedure, such as fine-needle aspiration cytology, core-needle biopsy, or open biopsy.

The cumulative risk of experiencing a first false positive screen was 18.0% and that of experiencing a false positive that involved an invasive procedure was 5.01%. Adjusting for irregular attendance, age at screening, or the number of screens attended had little effect on the estimates.

The results closely match earlier findings from Norway that have been based on assumptions rather than exclusively empirical data. However, these findings differ from results reported in U.S. studies, which have relied largely on data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, the researchers say.

“The latter have indicated that, for women who initiate biennial screening at the age of 50 years, the cumulative risk after 10 years is 42% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result and 6.4% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result involving an invasive procedure,” Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues write.

Several principal investigators with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium did not respond or were unavailable for comment when contacted by this news organization.

However, the study authors highlighted several factors that could help explain the discrepancy between the U.S. and European results.

In addition to double mammogram reading, “European guidelines recommend that breast radiologists read 3,500 to 11,000 mammograms annually, whereas 960 every 2 years are required by the U.S. Mammography Quality Standards Act,” the researchers note. They also point out that previous screening mammograms are readily available in Norway, whereas this is not always the case in the U.S.

“False-positive screening results are a part of the screening for breast cancer – and the women need to be informed about the risk,” Dr. Hofvind concluded. “The screening programs should aim to keep the rate as low as possible for the women [given] the costs.”

The study was supported by the Dam Foundation via the Norwegian Breast Cancer Society.

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

To reduce risks of lung cancer mortality, interventions designed to improve high-risk groups’ uptake of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening should focus on perceptions of lung cancer controllability, survival, and perceived effectiveness of changes in behavior, according to analysis of data from the SUMMIT study recently published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology. Such an approach may be more effective than trying to change risk perceptions.

While 1-year survival among patients diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer is 88%, it is only 19% for those diagnosed with advanced disease. But only 27% of patients are diagnosed with early-stage disease. Screening high-risk asymptomatic adults using LDCT detects early-stage disease and significantly reduces lung cancer mortality, according to Samantha L. Quaife, PhD, of the Wolfson Institute of Population Health at Queen Mary University of London, and associates.

The effectiveness and equity of LDCT lung cancer screening as a population-level early detection strategy is compromised by low uptake among high-risk groups, the authors wrote.

In the United States, only 2% of eligible smokers have been screened since screening was first recommended in 2013. To provide a scientific evidence base for intervention, an understanding of factors making high-risk groups less likely to participate in LDCT screening is critical, Dr. Quaife and colleagues wrote.

Their longitudinal cohort study evaluating psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake included 44,000 ever-smokers (aged 55-77 years) who were invited to mail a self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening. Eligibility for LDCT lung cancer screening and inclusion in the SUMMIT study were further determined through telephone and in-person Lung Health Check (LHC) appointments. The primary outcome was uptake of the invitation to book an LHC appointment by telephone.

Of those invited, 7,966 (18.1%) returned the questionnaire with 7,730 (45% female; mean age, about 64 years) linked to screening uptake data. About 30% reported being current smokers with high tobacco dependence (60.3% smoking within 30 minutes of waking). The analysis from Dr. Quaife and colleagues looked at psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake using a psychometrically validated self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening (SRQ-LCS) to measure psychological constructs hypothesized to be associated with uptake which included consequences, emotional representation, coherence (lung cancer knowledge), treatment control, personal control, risk perception, perceived stigma, response efficacy of smoking cessation, early diagnosis behavioral response, survival from lung cancer, and treatment intention.

Among those who perceived early diagnosis to be more beneficial as a behavioral response, the positive association with uptake was strongest (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-1.41). Those who perceived greater personal control (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11) or believed their risk of lung cancer was high (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) were also more likely to respond. Other uptake increases were found for those who perceived smoking cessation as an effective means of reducing lung cancer risk or thought the chances of surviving early-stage lung cancer were good or fair (P < .01), and for those who perceived lung cancer as stigmatized (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.14-1.40). Most of these constructs were also perceived more negatively by current than former smokers.

Income, employment, education, social class, and housing conditions were significantly associated with many of the constructs. Greater affluence correlated with perceived personal control and benefit from early diagnosis, but more negative perceptions of the consequences of lung cancer. Also, those from more affluent areas were more likely to perceive lung cancer to be stigmatized and perceive smoking cessation to be less effective in reducing risk. Current daily smokers were less willing to be treated for early-stage disease, more pessimistic about survival, but had the highest-risk perception scores, at odds with their lower participation in lung screening trials. This contradiction, Dr. Quaife and colleagues suggested, may be explained by current smokers also holding more negative perceptions associated with lower uptake, including negative perceptions of lung cancer controllability, early diagnosis and survival, lower willingness to be treated, and belief that smoking cessation is less effective in reducing risk. All of these undermine positive responses to their high perceived risk.

“These findings pinpoint specific psychological targets for intervention,” the authors wrote. Experimental studies investigating the methods and mechanisms through which these perceptions could be changed are needed.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship (C50664/A24460) awarded to Dr. Quaife. The study investigators declared no support from financial organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years.

To reduce risks of lung cancer mortality, interventions designed to improve high-risk groups’ uptake of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening should focus on perceptions of lung cancer controllability, survival, and perceived effectiveness of changes in behavior, according to analysis of data from the SUMMIT study recently published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology. Such an approach may be more effective than trying to change risk perceptions.

While 1-year survival among patients diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer is 88%, it is only 19% for those diagnosed with advanced disease. But only 27% of patients are diagnosed with early-stage disease. Screening high-risk asymptomatic adults using LDCT detects early-stage disease and significantly reduces lung cancer mortality, according to Samantha L. Quaife, PhD, of the Wolfson Institute of Population Health at Queen Mary University of London, and associates.

The effectiveness and equity of LDCT lung cancer screening as a population-level early detection strategy is compromised by low uptake among high-risk groups, the authors wrote.

In the United States, only 2% of eligible smokers have been screened since screening was first recommended in 2013. To provide a scientific evidence base for intervention, an understanding of factors making high-risk groups less likely to participate in LDCT screening is critical, Dr. Quaife and colleagues wrote.

Their longitudinal cohort study evaluating psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake included 44,000 ever-smokers (aged 55-77 years) who were invited to mail a self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening. Eligibility for LDCT lung cancer screening and inclusion in the SUMMIT study were further determined through telephone and in-person Lung Health Check (LHC) appointments. The primary outcome was uptake of the invitation to book an LHC appointment by telephone.

Of those invited, 7,966 (18.1%) returned the questionnaire with 7,730 (45% female; mean age, about 64 years) linked to screening uptake data. About 30% reported being current smokers with high tobacco dependence (60.3% smoking within 30 minutes of waking). The analysis from Dr. Quaife and colleagues looked at psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake using a psychometrically validated self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening (SRQ-LCS) to measure psychological constructs hypothesized to be associated with uptake which included consequences, emotional representation, coherence (lung cancer knowledge), treatment control, personal control, risk perception, perceived stigma, response efficacy of smoking cessation, early diagnosis behavioral response, survival from lung cancer, and treatment intention.

Among those who perceived early diagnosis to be more beneficial as a behavioral response, the positive association with uptake was strongest (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-1.41). Those who perceived greater personal control (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11) or believed their risk of lung cancer was high (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) were also more likely to respond. Other uptake increases were found for those who perceived smoking cessation as an effective means of reducing lung cancer risk or thought the chances of surviving early-stage lung cancer were good or fair (P < .01), and for those who perceived lung cancer as stigmatized (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.14-1.40). Most of these constructs were also perceived more negatively by current than former smokers.

Income, employment, education, social class, and housing conditions were significantly associated with many of the constructs. Greater affluence correlated with perceived personal control and benefit from early diagnosis, but more negative perceptions of the consequences of lung cancer. Also, those from more affluent areas were more likely to perceive lung cancer to be stigmatized and perceive smoking cessation to be less effective in reducing risk. Current daily smokers were less willing to be treated for early-stage disease, more pessimistic about survival, but had the highest-risk perception scores, at odds with their lower participation in lung screening trials. This contradiction, Dr. Quaife and colleagues suggested, may be explained by current smokers also holding more negative perceptions associated with lower uptake, including negative perceptions of lung cancer controllability, early diagnosis and survival, lower willingness to be treated, and belief that smoking cessation is less effective in reducing risk. All of these undermine positive responses to their high perceived risk.

“These findings pinpoint specific psychological targets for intervention,” the authors wrote. Experimental studies investigating the methods and mechanisms through which these perceptions could be changed are needed.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship (C50664/A24460) awarded to Dr. Quaife. The study investigators declared no support from financial organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years.

To reduce risks of lung cancer mortality, interventions designed to improve high-risk groups’ uptake of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening should focus on perceptions of lung cancer controllability, survival, and perceived effectiveness of changes in behavior, according to analysis of data from the SUMMIT study recently published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology. Such an approach may be more effective than trying to change risk perceptions.

While 1-year survival among patients diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer is 88%, it is only 19% for those diagnosed with advanced disease. But only 27% of patients are diagnosed with early-stage disease. Screening high-risk asymptomatic adults using LDCT detects early-stage disease and significantly reduces lung cancer mortality, according to Samantha L. Quaife, PhD, of the Wolfson Institute of Population Health at Queen Mary University of London, and associates.

The effectiveness and equity of LDCT lung cancer screening as a population-level early detection strategy is compromised by low uptake among high-risk groups, the authors wrote.

In the United States, only 2% of eligible smokers have been screened since screening was first recommended in 2013. To provide a scientific evidence base for intervention, an understanding of factors making high-risk groups less likely to participate in LDCT screening is critical, Dr. Quaife and colleagues wrote.

Their longitudinal cohort study evaluating psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake included 44,000 ever-smokers (aged 55-77 years) who were invited to mail a self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening. Eligibility for LDCT lung cancer screening and inclusion in the SUMMIT study were further determined through telephone and in-person Lung Health Check (LHC) appointments. The primary outcome was uptake of the invitation to book an LHC appointment by telephone.

Of those invited, 7,966 (18.1%) returned the questionnaire with 7,730 (45% female; mean age, about 64 years) linked to screening uptake data. About 30% reported being current smokers with high tobacco dependence (60.3% smoking within 30 minutes of waking). The analysis from Dr. Quaife and colleagues looked at psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake using a psychometrically validated self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening (SRQ-LCS) to measure psychological constructs hypothesized to be associated with uptake which included consequences, emotional representation, coherence (lung cancer knowledge), treatment control, personal control, risk perception, perceived stigma, response efficacy of smoking cessation, early diagnosis behavioral response, survival from lung cancer, and treatment intention.

Among those who perceived early diagnosis to be more beneficial as a behavioral response, the positive association with uptake was strongest (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-1.41). Those who perceived greater personal control (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11) or believed their risk of lung cancer was high (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) were also more likely to respond. Other uptake increases were found for those who perceived smoking cessation as an effective means of reducing lung cancer risk or thought the chances of surviving early-stage lung cancer were good or fair (P < .01), and for those who perceived lung cancer as stigmatized (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.14-1.40). Most of these constructs were also perceived more negatively by current than former smokers.

Income, employment, education, social class, and housing conditions were significantly associated with many of the constructs. Greater affluence correlated with perceived personal control and benefit from early diagnosis, but more negative perceptions of the consequences of lung cancer. Also, those from more affluent areas were more likely to perceive lung cancer to be stigmatized and perceive smoking cessation to be less effective in reducing risk. Current daily smokers were less willing to be treated for early-stage disease, more pessimistic about survival, but had the highest-risk perception scores, at odds with their lower participation in lung screening trials. This contradiction, Dr. Quaife and colleagues suggested, may be explained by current smokers also holding more negative perceptions associated with lower uptake, including negative perceptions of lung cancer controllability, early diagnosis and survival, lower willingness to be treated, and belief that smoking cessation is less effective in reducing risk. All of these undermine positive responses to their high perceived risk.

“These findings pinpoint specific psychological targets for intervention,” the authors wrote. Experimental studies investigating the methods and mechanisms through which these perceptions could be changed are needed.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship (C50664/A24460) awarded to Dr. Quaife. The study investigators declared no support from financial organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years.

A new analysis of cardiovascular adverse drug reactions for non–small cell lung cancer (NCSLC)–targeted therapies finds that ALK and ROS1 inhibitors are associated with higher odds of conduction disease and QT prolongation than BRAF and EGFR inhibitors.

The findings are especially important because cardiovascular disease is known to be associated with NSCLC. Even before the start of therapy, 14%-22% of patients with stage I-IV NSCLC have heart failure and 26%-31% of patients have arrhythmias. No other study to date has described cardiovascular effects to this extent as a result of treatment.

The findings were published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Led by Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, researchers evaluated the association between NSCLC-targeted agents with arrhythmia and heart failure. Their findings are based on analysis of data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database VigiBase. They found that of 98,765 adverse reactions, 61,383 occurred in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors, 15,540 were associated with ALK inhibitors, and 21,842 were associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Arrhythmias occurred in 1,783 patients and 1,146 patients had heart failure.
 

The specifics

Strong associations with conduction disease and QT prolongation were found for ALK and ROS1 inhibitors, especially crizotinib. Of QT prolongation cases, 38.5% of patients on ceritinib and 18.4% of patients on crizotinib also had conduction disease and 7.9% of alectinib-associated conduction disease cases also had prolongation.

BRAF and MEK inhibitors had stronger associations with heart failure, while osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was strongly associated with QT prolongation, supraventricular tachycardia, and heart failure.

ALK inhibitors were found to be 13 times more likely to lead to conduction disease and five times more likely to lead to lead to long QT syndrome as compared to all NSCLC-targeted therapies together. ALK inhibitor crizotinib had significantly higher odds of conduction disease, compared with all other targeted therapies, but of all ALK inhibitors, ceritinib and lorlatinib had the lowest odds of conduction disease. Crizotinib was 1.9 times more likely to lead to QT prolongation than other ALK inhibitors.

The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib was associated with 49 times more like to lead to long QT syndrome than other EGFR inhibitors and 6 times more likely as compared with all other targeted therapies. The EGFR inhibitor gefitinib was twice as likely than other EGFR inhibitors to lead to conduction disease. The third-generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib had approximately two times higher odds of supraventricular tachycardia than other EGFR inhibitors.

Osimertinib was associated with 6.8 times higher chances of heart failure, compared with other EGFR inhibitors, and 3.6 times more than other targeted therapies. Dabrafenib and trametinib were associated with two to three times higher odds of heart failure as compared with other targeted therapies.

“There is a need for an understanding of the mechanisms underlying these toxicities and for additional studies to establish standardized guidelines for monitoring, particularly for osimertinib, crizotinib, and alectinib,” the authors wrote

The authors disclosed a number of paid advisory roles with various pharmaceutical companies.

A new analysis of cardiovascular adverse drug reactions for non–small cell lung cancer (NCSLC)–targeted therapies finds that ALK and ROS1 inhibitors are associated with higher odds of conduction disease and QT prolongation than BRAF and EGFR inhibitors.

The findings are especially important because cardiovascular disease is known to be associated with NSCLC. Even before the start of therapy, 14%-22% of patients with stage I-IV NSCLC have heart failure and 26%-31% of patients have arrhythmias. No other study to date has described cardiovascular effects to this extent as a result of treatment.

The findings were published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Led by Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, researchers evaluated the association between NSCLC-targeted agents with arrhythmia and heart failure. Their findings are based on analysis of data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database VigiBase. They found that of 98,765 adverse reactions, 61,383 occurred in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors, 15,540 were associated with ALK inhibitors, and 21,842 were associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Arrhythmias occurred in 1,783 patients and 1,146 patients had heart failure.
 

The specifics

Strong associations with conduction disease and QT prolongation were found for ALK and ROS1 inhibitors, especially crizotinib. Of QT prolongation cases, 38.5% of patients on ceritinib and 18.4% of patients on crizotinib also had conduction disease and 7.9% of alectinib-associated conduction disease cases also had prolongation.

BRAF and MEK inhibitors had stronger associations with heart failure, while osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was strongly associated with QT prolongation, supraventricular tachycardia, and heart failure.

ALK inhibitors were found to be 13 times more likely to lead to conduction disease and five times more likely to lead to lead to long QT syndrome as compared to all NSCLC-targeted therapies together. ALK inhibitor crizotinib had significantly higher odds of conduction disease, compared with all other targeted therapies, but of all ALK inhibitors, ceritinib and lorlatinib had the lowest odds of conduction disease. Crizotinib was 1.9 times more likely to lead to QT prolongation than other ALK inhibitors.

The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib was associated with 49 times more like to lead to long QT syndrome than other EGFR inhibitors and 6 times more likely as compared with all other targeted therapies. The EGFR inhibitor gefitinib was twice as likely than other EGFR inhibitors to lead to conduction disease. The third-generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib had approximately two times higher odds of supraventricular tachycardia than other EGFR inhibitors.

Osimertinib was associated with 6.8 times higher chances of heart failure, compared with other EGFR inhibitors, and 3.6 times more than other targeted therapies. Dabrafenib and trametinib were associated with two to three times higher odds of heart failure as compared with other targeted therapies.

“There is a need for an understanding of the mechanisms underlying these toxicities and for additional studies to establish standardized guidelines for monitoring, particularly for osimertinib, crizotinib, and alectinib,” the authors wrote

The authors disclosed a number of paid advisory roles with various pharmaceutical companies.

A new analysis of cardiovascular adverse drug reactions for non–small cell lung cancer (NCSLC)–targeted therapies finds that ALK and ROS1 inhibitors are associated with higher odds of conduction disease and QT prolongation than BRAF and EGFR inhibitors.

The findings are especially important because cardiovascular disease is known to be associated with NSCLC. Even before the start of therapy, 14%-22% of patients with stage I-IV NSCLC have heart failure and 26%-31% of patients have arrhythmias. No other study to date has described cardiovascular effects to this extent as a result of treatment.

The findings were published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Led by Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, researchers evaluated the association between NSCLC-targeted agents with arrhythmia and heart failure. Their findings are based on analysis of data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database VigiBase. They found that of 98,765 adverse reactions, 61,383 occurred in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors, 15,540 were associated with ALK inhibitors, and 21,842 were associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Arrhythmias occurred in 1,783 patients and 1,146 patients had heart failure.
 

The specifics

Strong associations with conduction disease and QT prolongation were found for ALK and ROS1 inhibitors, especially crizotinib. Of QT prolongation cases, 38.5% of patients on ceritinib and 18.4% of patients on crizotinib also had conduction disease and 7.9% of alectinib-associated conduction disease cases also had prolongation.

BRAF and MEK inhibitors had stronger associations with heart failure, while osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was strongly associated with QT prolongation, supraventricular tachycardia, and heart failure.

ALK inhibitors were found to be 13 times more likely to lead to conduction disease and five times more likely to lead to lead to long QT syndrome as compared to all NSCLC-targeted therapies together. ALK inhibitor crizotinib had significantly higher odds of conduction disease, compared with all other targeted therapies, but of all ALK inhibitors, ceritinib and lorlatinib had the lowest odds of conduction disease. Crizotinib was 1.9 times more likely to lead to QT prolongation than other ALK inhibitors.

The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib was associated with 49 times more like to lead to long QT syndrome than other EGFR inhibitors and 6 times more likely as compared with all other targeted therapies. The EGFR inhibitor gefitinib was twice as likely than other EGFR inhibitors to lead to conduction disease. The third-generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib had approximately two times higher odds of supraventricular tachycardia than other EGFR inhibitors.

Osimertinib was associated with 6.8 times higher chances of heart failure, compared with other EGFR inhibitors, and 3.6 times more than other targeted therapies. Dabrafenib and trametinib were associated with two to three times higher odds of heart failure as compared with other targeted therapies.

“There is a need for an understanding of the mechanisms underlying these toxicities and for additional studies to establish standardized guidelines for monitoring, particularly for osimertinib, crizotinib, and alectinib,” the authors wrote

The authors disclosed a number of paid advisory roles with various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients diagnosed with breast cancer during incarceration are unlikely to receive neoadjuvant therapy and have an increase time to surgery if they have the procedure upfront compared to other patients, suggests a new study.

The study was presented at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 10 (Abstract P5-14-10).

Examining the records of more than 4,300 patients with breast cancer who were treated between 2014 and 2020 in North Carolina, researchers identified 34 who were either incarcerated at the time of diagnosis or who were diagnosed before they were imprisoned.

They found that neoadjuvant therapy was not given to incarcerated breast cancer patients as compared to 8% of women who were never incarcerated and 20% of women incarcerated later. Incarcerated patients treated with surgery upfront had to wait on average more than 3 weeks longer than other patients for their procedure. Their findings were followed by a recently published study in JAMA Network Open indicating that young people with a history of incarceration were significantly more likely to experience early mortality and that mortality was higher among Black prisoners.

“These findings are concerning for missed treatment opportunities within the carceral system,” wrote researchers who were led by Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, MPHS, FACS, chief of breast surgery for the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia.

Dr. Fayanju told this news organization that she was “not surprised by the finding that there was no neoadjuvant chemotherapy given to patients at all. Even in the practice of care outside of the carceral system it is striking how much variation there is in regards to treatment sequence if it is not approached in an evidence-based way. Many of the social ills that contribute to incarceration also contribute to this variation in care, and it’s not surprising that in women who are experiencing incarceration, there is geometric escalation of disparities with regards to their opportunities for treatment.”

Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist and clinical investigator in the Breast Oncology Center at the Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, said “this is really interesting and important work showing some worrisome trends. On the one hand, this is a very small experience and such a small sample size is always vulnerable to bias or skew from factors that become more important. However, this is not the first observation that there are disparities of care in incarcerated populations,”said Dr. Mayer, who was not involved in the study. “This is a topic that has been studied in diseases outside of oncology, such as heart disease and diabetes. There is a theme that patients who are incarcerated have a disparity and inequity of care compared to those who are not.”

The current findings “fit in with general themes,” she said. As rates of cancer are expected to grow in the coming years, “understanding how to provide the best possible care in those settings is very important. This is early data but it’s an important signal and is suggesting to us that a greater understanding of health care access for incarcerated individuals is a very important area of study, and hopefully an area for which one could provide interventions that might help to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Fayanju and associates. set out to determine the disease and treatment characteristics of individuals with breast cancer and a history of incarceration. They focused on women who had a breast cancer diagnosis at the University of North Carolina Hospitals between April 2014 and December 2020. They gathered data on patient demographics, incarceration status, disease characteristics, treatment types, and dates of receipt of treatment, but there were few data available. “It is really striking how little data there is available. This is a very small study and is the best we could glean from a large state-wide dataset,” she said.

Of 4,332 breast cancer cases, 34 (0.8%) were diagnosed while incarcerated (70.6%) or before incarceration (29.4%). Those who were diagnosed during incarceration were significantly more likely to be single (P < .001), use illicit drugs at the time of diagnosis (P = .01), and have a family history of breast cancer (P = .03) as compared with patients who were never incarcerated and those who were diagnosed before incarceration.

The results also showed that patients diagnosed with breast cancer during incarceration were significantly less likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy at 0% versus 8.2% for those who were never incarcerated, and 20% for those who were diagnosed before incarceration (P = .01 for trend).

“Further research is needed to understand the full scope of cancer inequities and identify factors that contribute to them among patients who experience incarceration,” Dr. Fayanju said.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared for this featured study.

Patients diagnosed with breast cancer during incarceration are unlikely to receive neoadjuvant therapy and have an increase time to surgery if they have the procedure upfront compared to other patients, suggests a new study.

The study was presented at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 10 (Abstract P5-14-10).

Examining the records of more than 4,300 patients with breast cancer who were treated between 2014 and 2020 in North Carolina, researchers identified 34 who were either incarcerated at the time of diagnosis or who were diagnosed before they were imprisoned.

They found that neoadjuvant therapy was not given to incarcerated breast cancer patients as compared to 8% of women who were never incarcerated and 20% of women incarcerated later. Incarcerated patients treated with surgery upfront had to wait on average more than 3 weeks longer than other patients for their procedure. Their findings were followed by a recently published study in JAMA Network Open indicating that young people with a history of incarceration were significantly more likely to experience early mortality and that mortality was higher among Black prisoners.

“These findings are concerning for missed treatment opportunities within the carceral system,” wrote researchers who were led by Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, MPHS, FACS, chief of breast surgery for the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia.

Dr. Fayanju told this news organization that she was “not surprised by the finding that there was no neoadjuvant chemotherapy given to patients at all. Even in the practice of care outside of the carceral system it is striking how much variation there is in regards to treatment sequence if it is not approached in an evidence-based way. Many of the social ills that contribute to incarceration also contribute to this variation in care, and it’s not surprising that in women who are experiencing incarceration, there is geometric escalation of disparities with regards to their opportunities for treatment.”

Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist and clinical investigator in the Breast Oncology Center at the Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, said “this is really interesting and important work showing some worrisome trends. On the one hand, this is a very small experience and such a small sample size is always vulnerable to bias or skew from factors that become more important. However, this is not the first observation that there are disparities of care in incarcerated populations,”said Dr. Mayer, who was not involved in the study. “This is a topic that has been studied in diseases outside of oncology, such as heart disease and diabetes. There is a theme that patients who are incarcerated have a disparity and inequity of care compared to those who are not.”

The current findings “fit in with general themes,” she said. As rates of cancer are expected to grow in the coming years, “understanding how to provide the best possible care in those settings is very important. This is early data but it’s an important signal and is suggesting to us that a greater understanding of health care access for incarcerated individuals is a very important area of study, and hopefully an area for which one could provide interventions that might help to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Fayanju and associates. set out to determine the disease and treatment characteristics of individuals with breast cancer and a history of incarceration. They focused on women who had a breast cancer diagnosis at the University of North Carolina Hospitals between April 2014 and December 2020. They gathered data on patient demographics, incarceration status, disease characteristics, treatment types, and dates of receipt of treatment, but there were few data available. “It is really striking how little data there is available. This is a very small study and is the best we could glean from a large state-wide dataset,” she said.

Of 4,332 breast cancer cases, 34 (0.8%) were diagnosed while incarcerated (70.6%) or before incarceration (29.4%). Those who were diagnosed during incarceration were significantly more likely to be single (P < .001), use illicit drugs at the time of diagnosis (P = .01), and have a family history of breast cancer (P = .03) as compared with patients who were never incarcerated and those who were diagnosed before incarceration.

The results also showed that patients diagnosed with breast cancer during incarceration were significantly less likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy at 0% versus 8.2% for those who were never incarcerated, and 20% for those who were diagnosed before incarceration (P = .01 for trend).

“Further research is needed to understand the full scope of cancer inequities and identify factors that contribute to them among patients who experience incarceration,” Dr. Fayanju said.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared for this featured study.

Patients diagnosed with breast cancer during incarceration are unlikely to receive neoadjuvant therapy and have an increase time to surgery if they have the procedure upfront compared to other patients, suggests a new study.

The study was presented at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 10 (Abstract P5-14-10).

Examining the records of more than 4,300 patients with breast cancer who were treated between 2014 and 2020 in North Carolina, researchers identified 34 who were either incarcerated at the time of diagnosis or who were diagnosed before they were imprisoned.

They found that neoadjuvant therapy was not given to incarcerated breast cancer patients as compared to 8% of women who were never incarcerated and 20% of women incarcerated later. Incarcerated patients treated with surgery upfront had to wait on average more than 3 weeks longer than other patients for their procedure. Their findings were followed by a recently published study in JAMA Network Open indicating that young people with a history of incarceration were significantly more likely to experience early mortality and that mortality was higher among Black prisoners.

“These findings are concerning for missed treatment opportunities within the carceral system,” wrote researchers who were led by Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, MPHS, FACS, chief of breast surgery for the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia.

Dr. Fayanju told this news organization that she was “not surprised by the finding that there was no neoadjuvant chemotherapy given to patients at all. Even in the practice of care outside of the carceral system it is striking how much variation there is in regards to treatment sequence if it is not approached in an evidence-based way. Many of the social ills that contribute to incarceration also contribute to this variation in care, and it’s not surprising that in women who are experiencing incarceration, there is geometric escalation of disparities with regards to their opportunities for treatment.”

Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist and clinical investigator in the Breast Oncology Center at the Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, said “this is really interesting and important work showing some worrisome trends. On the one hand, this is a very small experience and such a small sample size is always vulnerable to bias or skew from factors that become more important. However, this is not the first observation that there are disparities of care in incarcerated populations,”said Dr. Mayer, who was not involved in the study. “This is a topic that has been studied in diseases outside of oncology, such as heart disease and diabetes. There is a theme that patients who are incarcerated have a disparity and inequity of care compared to those who are not.”

The current findings “fit in with general themes,” she said. As rates of cancer are expected to grow in the coming years, “understanding how to provide the best possible care in those settings is very important. This is early data but it’s an important signal and is suggesting to us that a greater understanding of health care access for incarcerated individuals is a very important area of study, and hopefully an area for which one could provide interventions that might help to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Fayanju and associates. set out to determine the disease and treatment characteristics of individuals with breast cancer and a history of incarceration. They focused on women who had a breast cancer diagnosis at the University of North Carolina Hospitals between April 2014 and December 2020. They gathered data on patient demographics, incarceration status, disease characteristics, treatment types, and dates of receipt of treatment, but there were few data available. “It is really striking how little data there is available. This is a very small study and is the best we could glean from a large state-wide dataset,” she said.

Of 4,332 breast cancer cases, 34 (0.8%) were diagnosed while incarcerated (70.6%) or before incarceration (29.4%). Those who were diagnosed during incarceration were significantly more likely to be single (P < .001), use illicit drugs at the time of diagnosis (P = .01), and have a family history of breast cancer (P = .03) as compared with patients who were never incarcerated and those who were diagnosed before incarceration.

The results also showed that patients diagnosed with breast cancer during incarceration were significantly less likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy at 0% versus 8.2% for those who were never incarcerated, and 20% for those who were diagnosed before incarceration (P = .01 for trend).

“Further research is needed to understand the full scope of cancer inequities and identify factors that contribute to them among patients who experience incarceration,” Dr. Fayanju said.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared for this featured study.

A high-fiber diet may improve treatment response among patients with advanced melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors, while probiotics may reduce treatment effectiveness, a new study shows.

Investigators found that the patients who reported consuming at least 20 g of dietary fiber daily had significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than those who reported consuming lower amounts of dietary fiber. However, patients who took a probiotic supplement in the past month had slightly shorter PFS, but the results were not statistically significant.

And after adjusting for clinical factors, each 5-g increase in daily dietary fiber intake corresponded to a 30% lower risk of disease progression, according to the analysis, published online Dec. 23, 2021, in Science.

“Our study sheds light on the potential effects of a patient’s diet and supplement use when starting treatment with immune checkpoint blockade,” co–lead study author Jennifer Wargo, MD, professor of genomic medicine and surgical oncology at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release. “These results provide further support for clinical trials to modulate the microbiome with the goal of improving cancer outcomes using dietary and other strategies.”

Previous research has suggested that the microbiome can influence patients’ response to immunotherapy. One recent analysis, for instance, found that fecal microbiota transplant can improve response to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. And a small 2019 analysis from Dr. Dr. Wargo and colleagues hinted that a high-fiber diet may enhance patients’ ability to respond to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma, while probiotics appear to dampen that response.

Still, the role diet and probiotic supplements play in treatment response remains poorly understood.

In the current study, Dr. Wargo and colleagues assessed fecal microbiota profiles and dietary habits, including fiber intake and probiotic use, in 158 patients with advanced melanoma who received immune checkpoint blockade inhibitors.

In the cohort, 31% (49 of 158) of late-stage melanoma patients reported taking a commercially available probiotic in the past month. When assessing whether probiotic use influenced patient outcomes, the investigators observed a shorter but not statistically significant difference in PFS in those who took a probiotic (median, 17 months) versus those who did not (23 months).

Higher dietary fiber, however, was associated with significantly improved PFS in a subset of 128 patients. The team divided patients into a higher-fiber intake group (those consuming at least 20 g/day) and a low-fiber group (those consuming less than 20 g).

The 37 patients reporting higher fiber intake demonstrated improved PFS, compared with those in the low-intake group (median PFS not reached vs. 13 months), plus a 30% lower risk of disease progression or death for each additional 5 g consumed each day.

“The observed protective effect of dietary fiber intake in relation to PFS and response remained consistent among the subset of patients treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy, with the exclusion of patients reporting recent antibiotic use,” the authors noted.

When assessing fiber and probiotic intake together, the researchers found that immunotherapy response rate was higher (82%) in the 22 patients who reported sufficient dietary fiber intake with no probiotic use versus 59% in 101 patients who reported either insufficient fiber intake or probiotic use.

Overall, the research suggests that “consuming a diet rich in fiber, like fruits, vegetables, and legumes, could improve your ability to respond to immunotherapy,” co–lead author Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, chief of the Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology in the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement. “The data also suggest that it’s probably better for people with cancer receiving immunotherapy not to use commercially available probiotics.”

The investigators also explored whether dietary fiber intake enhanced treatment response in preclinical mouse models of melanoma. In this instance, mice receiving a fiber-rich diet showed delayed tumor growth after anti–PD-1 treatment, compared with mice given a low-fiber diet or probiotics.

According to the authors, “our preclinical models support the hypothesis that dietary fiber and probiotics modulate the microbiome and that antitumor immunity is impaired in mice receiving a low-fiber diet and in those receiving probiotics – with suppression of intratumoral [interferon-gamma] T-cell responses in both cases.”

Dietary fiber may exert beneficial effect by increasing specific types of bacteria in the gut, such as Ruminococcaceae, which “produce high levels of certain short-chain fatty acids that have an antitumor effect,” Dr. Trinchieri explained.

However, “the impact of dietary fiber and probiotics on the gut microbiota is only part of the bigger picture,” Dr. Trinchieri said in a press release. “Many factors can affect the ability of a patient with melanoma to respond to immunotherapy” but, according to this analysis, “the microbiota seems to be one of the dominant factors.”

While Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, applauded the “innovative and interesting” research, he believes the patient population is too small to confirm that a high-fiber diet does indeed contribute to improved immunotherapy response and PFS in patients with advanced melanoma.

Additional data are needed to clarify these findings. “I will believe it if I could see it replicated in a larger study,” Dr. Weber, professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, said in an interview.

Dr. Wargo noted that a randomized clinical trial exploring how diets with varying fiber content affect the microbiome and immune response is currently enrolling patients with stage III and IV melanoma receiving immunotherapy.

This study was supported by the Melanoma Moon Shot, among others. Dr. Wargo is a collaborator on a U.S. patent application that covers methods to enhance immune checkpoint blockade responses by modulating the microbiome. Dr. Weber reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.

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

A high-fiber diet may improve treatment response among patients with advanced melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors, while probiotics may reduce treatment effectiveness, a new study shows.

Investigators found that the patients who reported consuming at least 20 g of dietary fiber daily had significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than those who reported consuming lower amounts of dietary fiber. However, patients who took a probiotic supplement in the past month had slightly shorter PFS, but the results were not statistically significant.

And after adjusting for clinical factors, each 5-g increase in daily dietary fiber intake corresponded to a 30% lower risk of disease progression, according to the analysis, published online Dec. 23, 2021, in Science.

“Our study sheds light on the potential effects of a patient’s diet and supplement use when starting treatment with immune checkpoint blockade,” co–lead study author Jennifer Wargo, MD, professor of genomic medicine and surgical oncology at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release. “These results provide further support for clinical trials to modulate the microbiome with the goal of improving cancer outcomes using dietary and other strategies.”

Previous research has suggested that the microbiome can influence patients’ response to immunotherapy. One recent analysis, for instance, found that fecal microbiota transplant can improve response to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. And a small 2019 analysis from Dr. Dr. Wargo and colleagues hinted that a high-fiber diet may enhance patients’ ability to respond to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma, while probiotics appear to dampen that response.

Still, the role diet and probiotic supplements play in treatment response remains poorly understood.

In the current study, Dr. Wargo and colleagues assessed fecal microbiota profiles and dietary habits, including fiber intake and probiotic use, in 158 patients with advanced melanoma who received immune checkpoint blockade inhibitors.

In the cohort, 31% (49 of 158) of late-stage melanoma patients reported taking a commercially available probiotic in the past month. When assessing whether probiotic use influenced patient outcomes, the investigators observed a shorter but not statistically significant difference in PFS in those who took a probiotic (median, 17 months) versus those who did not (23 months).

Higher dietary fiber, however, was associated with significantly improved PFS in a subset of 128 patients. The team divided patients into a higher-fiber intake group (those consuming at least 20 g/day) and a low-fiber group (those consuming less than 20 g).

The 37 patients reporting higher fiber intake demonstrated improved PFS, compared with those in the low-intake group (median PFS not reached vs. 13 months), plus a 30% lower risk of disease progression or death for each additional 5 g consumed each day.

“The observed protective effect of dietary fiber intake in relation to PFS and response remained consistent among the subset of patients treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy, with the exclusion of patients reporting recent antibiotic use,” the authors noted.

When assessing fiber and probiotic intake together, the researchers found that immunotherapy response rate was higher (82%) in the 22 patients who reported sufficient dietary fiber intake with no probiotic use versus 59% in 101 patients who reported either insufficient fiber intake or probiotic use.

Overall, the research suggests that “consuming a diet rich in fiber, like fruits, vegetables, and legumes, could improve your ability to respond to immunotherapy,” co–lead author Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, chief of the Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology in the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement. “The data also suggest that it’s probably better for people with cancer receiving immunotherapy not to use commercially available probiotics.”

The investigators also explored whether dietary fiber intake enhanced treatment response in preclinical mouse models of melanoma. In this instance, mice receiving a fiber-rich diet showed delayed tumor growth after anti–PD-1 treatment, compared with mice given a low-fiber diet or probiotics.

According to the authors, “our preclinical models support the hypothesis that dietary fiber and probiotics modulate the microbiome and that antitumor immunity is impaired in mice receiving a low-fiber diet and in those receiving probiotics – with suppression of intratumoral [interferon-gamma] T-cell responses in both cases.”

Dietary fiber may exert beneficial effect by increasing specific types of bacteria in the gut, such as Ruminococcaceae, which “produce high levels of certain short-chain fatty acids that have an antitumor effect,” Dr. Trinchieri explained.

However, “the impact of dietary fiber and probiotics on the gut microbiota is only part of the bigger picture,” Dr. Trinchieri said in a press release. “Many factors can affect the ability of a patient with melanoma to respond to immunotherapy” but, according to this analysis, “the microbiota seems to be one of the dominant factors.”

While Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, applauded the “innovative and interesting” research, he believes the patient population is too small to confirm that a high-fiber diet does indeed contribute to improved immunotherapy response and PFS in patients with advanced melanoma.

Additional data are needed to clarify these findings. “I will believe it if I could see it replicated in a larger study,” Dr. Weber, professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, said in an interview.

Dr. Wargo noted that a randomized clinical trial exploring how diets with varying fiber content affect the microbiome and immune response is currently enrolling patients with stage III and IV melanoma receiving immunotherapy.

This study was supported by the Melanoma Moon Shot, among others. Dr. Wargo is a collaborator on a U.S. patent application that covers methods to enhance immune checkpoint blockade responses by modulating the microbiome. Dr. Weber reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.

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

A high-fiber diet may improve treatment response among patients with advanced melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors, while probiotics may reduce treatment effectiveness, a new study shows.

Investigators found that the patients who reported consuming at least 20 g of dietary fiber daily had significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than those who reported consuming lower amounts of dietary fiber. However, patients who took a probiotic supplement in the past month had slightly shorter PFS, but the results were not statistically significant.

And after adjusting for clinical factors, each 5-g increase in daily dietary fiber intake corresponded to a 30% lower risk of disease progression, according to the analysis, published online Dec. 23, 2021, in Science.

“Our study sheds light on the potential effects of a patient’s diet and supplement use when starting treatment with immune checkpoint blockade,” co–lead study author Jennifer Wargo, MD, professor of genomic medicine and surgical oncology at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release. “These results provide further support for clinical trials to modulate the microbiome with the goal of improving cancer outcomes using dietary and other strategies.”

Previous research has suggested that the microbiome can influence patients’ response to immunotherapy. One recent analysis, for instance, found that fecal microbiota transplant can improve response to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. And a small 2019 analysis from Dr. Dr. Wargo and colleagues hinted that a high-fiber diet may enhance patients’ ability to respond to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma, while probiotics appear to dampen that response.

Still, the role diet and probiotic supplements play in treatment response remains poorly understood.

In the current study, Dr. Wargo and colleagues assessed fecal microbiota profiles and dietary habits, including fiber intake and probiotic use, in 158 patients with advanced melanoma who received immune checkpoint blockade inhibitors.

In the cohort, 31% (49 of 158) of late-stage melanoma patients reported taking a commercially available probiotic in the past month. When assessing whether probiotic use influenced patient outcomes, the investigators observed a shorter but not statistically significant difference in PFS in those who took a probiotic (median, 17 months) versus those who did not (23 months).

Higher dietary fiber, however, was associated with significantly improved PFS in a subset of 128 patients. The team divided patients into a higher-fiber intake group (those consuming at least 20 g/day) and a low-fiber group (those consuming less than 20 g).

The 37 patients reporting higher fiber intake demonstrated improved PFS, compared with those in the low-intake group (median PFS not reached vs. 13 months), plus a 30% lower risk of disease progression or death for each additional 5 g consumed each day.

“The observed protective effect of dietary fiber intake in relation to PFS and response remained consistent among the subset of patients treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy, with the exclusion of patients reporting recent antibiotic use,” the authors noted.

When assessing fiber and probiotic intake together, the researchers found that immunotherapy response rate was higher (82%) in the 22 patients who reported sufficient dietary fiber intake with no probiotic use versus 59% in 101 patients who reported either insufficient fiber intake or probiotic use.

Overall, the research suggests that “consuming a diet rich in fiber, like fruits, vegetables, and legumes, could improve your ability to respond to immunotherapy,” co–lead author Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, chief of the Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology in the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement. “The data also suggest that it’s probably better for people with cancer receiving immunotherapy not to use commercially available probiotics.”

The investigators also explored whether dietary fiber intake enhanced treatment response in preclinical mouse models of melanoma. In this instance, mice receiving a fiber-rich diet showed delayed tumor growth after anti–PD-1 treatment, compared with mice given a low-fiber diet or probiotics.

According to the authors, “our preclinical models support the hypothesis that dietary fiber and probiotics modulate the microbiome and that antitumor immunity is impaired in mice receiving a low-fiber diet and in those receiving probiotics – with suppression of intratumoral [interferon-gamma] T-cell responses in both cases.”

Dietary fiber may exert beneficial effect by increasing specific types of bacteria in the gut, such as Ruminococcaceae, which “produce high levels of certain short-chain fatty acids that have an antitumor effect,” Dr. Trinchieri explained.

However, “the impact of dietary fiber and probiotics on the gut microbiota is only part of the bigger picture,” Dr. Trinchieri said in a press release. “Many factors can affect the ability of a patient with melanoma to respond to immunotherapy” but, according to this analysis, “the microbiota seems to be one of the dominant factors.”

While Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, applauded the “innovative and interesting” research, he believes the patient population is too small to confirm that a high-fiber diet does indeed contribute to improved immunotherapy response and PFS in patients with advanced melanoma.

Additional data are needed to clarify these findings. “I will believe it if I could see it replicated in a larger study,” Dr. Weber, professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, said in an interview.

Dr. Wargo noted that a randomized clinical trial exploring how diets with varying fiber content affect the microbiome and immune response is currently enrolling patients with stage III and IV melanoma receiving immunotherapy.

This study was supported by the Melanoma Moon Shot, among others. Dr. Wargo is a collaborator on a U.S. patent application that covers methods to enhance immune checkpoint blockade responses by modulating the microbiome. Dr. Weber reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.

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

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) has lowered the recommended age to start CRC screening from 50 to 45 years of age for all average-risk individuals.

Although no studies have directly demonstrated the result of lowering the age of screening, lead author Swati G. Patel, MD, of University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, and colleagues suggested that the increasing incidence of advanced CRC among younger individuals, coupled with the net benefit of screening, warrant a lower age threshold.

“Recent data ... show that CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 50 to 64 have increased by 1% annually between 2011 and 2016,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “Similarly, CRC incidence and mortality rates in persons under age 50, termed early-age onset CRC (EAO-CRC), are also increasing.”

The task force of nine experts, representing the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, conducted a literature review and generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. In addition to recommending a lower age for initial screening, Dr. Patel and colleagues provided guidance for cessation of screening among older individuals.
 

Guidance for screening initiation

According to the authors, the present risk of CRC among younger individuals mirrors the historical risk for older individuals before screening was prevalent.

“The current CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 45 to 49 are similar to the incidence rates observed in 50-year-olds in 1992, before widespread CRC screening was performed,” they wrote.

Elevated rates among younger people have been disproportionately driven by rectal cancer, according to the authors. From 2006 to 2015, incidence of rectal cancer among Americans under 50 increased 1.7% per year, compared with 0.7% per year for colon cancer, based on data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

Associated mortality rates also increased, the authors noted. From 1999-2019, mortality from colon cancer among people 45-49 years increased from 6.4 to 6.6 deaths per 100,000 individuals, while deaths from rectal cancer increased from 1.3 to 1.7 per 100,000, according to the CDC. Concurrently, CRC-associated mortality rates among older individuals generally declined.

While these findings suggest a growing disease burden among the under-50-year age group, controlled data demonstrating the effects of earlier screening are lacking, Dr. Patel and colleagues noted. Still, they predicted that expanded screening would generate a net benefit.

“Although there are no CRC screening safety data for average-risk individuals [younger than] 50, there are ample data that colonoscopy for other indications (screening based on family history, symptom evaluation, etc.) is safer when comparing younger versus older individuals,” they wrote.

Supporting this claim, the authors cited three independently generated microsimulation models from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that “showed a favorable balance of life-years gained compared with adverse events,” given 100% compliance.
 

Guidance for screening cessation

Like the situation with younger individuals, minimal data are available to determine the best time for screening cessation, according to the task force.

“There are no randomized or observational studies after 2017 that enrolled individuals over age 75 to inform the appropriate time to stop CRC screening,” the authors wrote. “In our search of 37 relevant articles, only one presented primary data for when to stop screening.”

This one available study showed that some individuals older than 74 do in fact gain benefit from screening,

“For example,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote, “women without a history of screening and no comorbidities benefitted from annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening until age 90, whereas unscreened men with or without comorbidities benefited from annual FIT screening until age 88. Conversely, screening was not beneficial beyond age 66 in men or women with severe comorbidities.”

The task force therefore recommended personalized screening for individuals 76-85 years of age “based on the balance of benefits and harms and individual patient clinical factors and preferences.”

Screening for individuals 86 years and older, according to the task force, is unnecessary.

The authors disclosed relationships with Olympus America, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and others.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) has lowered the recommended age to start CRC screening from 50 to 45 years of age for all average-risk individuals.

Although no studies have directly demonstrated the result of lowering the age of screening, lead author Swati G. Patel, MD, of University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, and colleagues suggested that the increasing incidence of advanced CRC among younger individuals, coupled with the net benefit of screening, warrant a lower age threshold.

“Recent data ... show that CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 50 to 64 have increased by 1% annually between 2011 and 2016,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “Similarly, CRC incidence and mortality rates in persons under age 50, termed early-age onset CRC (EAO-CRC), are also increasing.”

The task force of nine experts, representing the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, conducted a literature review and generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. In addition to recommending a lower age for initial screening, Dr. Patel and colleagues provided guidance for cessation of screening among older individuals.
 

Guidance for screening initiation

According to the authors, the present risk of CRC among younger individuals mirrors the historical risk for older individuals before screening was prevalent.

“The current CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 45 to 49 are similar to the incidence rates observed in 50-year-olds in 1992, before widespread CRC screening was performed,” they wrote.

Elevated rates among younger people have been disproportionately driven by rectal cancer, according to the authors. From 2006 to 2015, incidence of rectal cancer among Americans under 50 increased 1.7% per year, compared with 0.7% per year for colon cancer, based on data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

Associated mortality rates also increased, the authors noted. From 1999-2019, mortality from colon cancer among people 45-49 years increased from 6.4 to 6.6 deaths per 100,000 individuals, while deaths from rectal cancer increased from 1.3 to 1.7 per 100,000, according to the CDC. Concurrently, CRC-associated mortality rates among older individuals generally declined.

While these findings suggest a growing disease burden among the under-50-year age group, controlled data demonstrating the effects of earlier screening are lacking, Dr. Patel and colleagues noted. Still, they predicted that expanded screening would generate a net benefit.

“Although there are no CRC screening safety data for average-risk individuals [younger than] 50, there are ample data that colonoscopy for other indications (screening based on family history, symptom evaluation, etc.) is safer when comparing younger versus older individuals,” they wrote.

Supporting this claim, the authors cited three independently generated microsimulation models from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that “showed a favorable balance of life-years gained compared with adverse events,” given 100% compliance.
 

Guidance for screening cessation

Like the situation with younger individuals, minimal data are available to determine the best time for screening cessation, according to the task force.

“There are no randomized or observational studies after 2017 that enrolled individuals over age 75 to inform the appropriate time to stop CRC screening,” the authors wrote. “In our search of 37 relevant articles, only one presented primary data for when to stop screening.”

This one available study showed that some individuals older than 74 do in fact gain benefit from screening,

“For example,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote, “women without a history of screening and no comorbidities benefitted from annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening until age 90, whereas unscreened men with or without comorbidities benefited from annual FIT screening until age 88. Conversely, screening was not beneficial beyond age 66 in men or women with severe comorbidities.”

The task force therefore recommended personalized screening for individuals 76-85 years of age “based on the balance of benefits and harms and individual patient clinical factors and preferences.”

Screening for individuals 86 years and older, according to the task force, is unnecessary.

The authors disclosed relationships with Olympus America, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and others.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) has lowered the recommended age to start CRC screening from 50 to 45 years of age for all average-risk individuals.

Although no studies have directly demonstrated the result of lowering the age of screening, lead author Swati G. Patel, MD, of University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, and colleagues suggested that the increasing incidence of advanced CRC among younger individuals, coupled with the net benefit of screening, warrant a lower age threshold.

“Recent data ... show that CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 50 to 64 have increased by 1% annually between 2011 and 2016,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “Similarly, CRC incidence and mortality rates in persons under age 50, termed early-age onset CRC (EAO-CRC), are also increasing.”

The task force of nine experts, representing the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, conducted a literature review and generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. In addition to recommending a lower age for initial screening, Dr. Patel and colleagues provided guidance for cessation of screening among older individuals.
 

Guidance for screening initiation

According to the authors, the present risk of CRC among younger individuals mirrors the historical risk for older individuals before screening was prevalent.

“The current CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 45 to 49 are similar to the incidence rates observed in 50-year-olds in 1992, before widespread CRC screening was performed,” they wrote.

Elevated rates among younger people have been disproportionately driven by rectal cancer, according to the authors. From 2006 to 2015, incidence of rectal cancer among Americans under 50 increased 1.7% per year, compared with 0.7% per year for colon cancer, based on data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

Associated mortality rates also increased, the authors noted. From 1999-2019, mortality from colon cancer among people 45-49 years increased from 6.4 to 6.6 deaths per 100,000 individuals, while deaths from rectal cancer increased from 1.3 to 1.7 per 100,000, according to the CDC. Concurrently, CRC-associated mortality rates among older individuals generally declined.

While these findings suggest a growing disease burden among the under-50-year age group, controlled data demonstrating the effects of earlier screening are lacking, Dr. Patel and colleagues noted. Still, they predicted that expanded screening would generate a net benefit.

“Although there are no CRC screening safety data for average-risk individuals [younger than] 50, there are ample data that colonoscopy for other indications (screening based on family history, symptom evaluation, etc.) is safer when comparing younger versus older individuals,” they wrote.

Supporting this claim, the authors cited three independently generated microsimulation models from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that “showed a favorable balance of life-years gained compared with adverse events,” given 100% compliance.
 

Guidance for screening cessation

Like the situation with younger individuals, minimal data are available to determine the best time for screening cessation, according to the task force.

“There are no randomized or observational studies after 2017 that enrolled individuals over age 75 to inform the appropriate time to stop CRC screening,” the authors wrote. “In our search of 37 relevant articles, only one presented primary data for when to stop screening.”

This one available study showed that some individuals older than 74 do in fact gain benefit from screening,

“For example,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote, “women without a history of screening and no comorbidities benefitted from annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening until age 90, whereas unscreened men with or without comorbidities benefited from annual FIT screening until age 88. Conversely, screening was not beneficial beyond age 66 in men or women with severe comorbidities.”

The task force therefore recommended personalized screening for individuals 76-85 years of age “based on the balance of benefits and harms and individual patient clinical factors and preferences.”

Screening for individuals 86 years and older, according to the task force, is unnecessary.

The authors disclosed relationships with Olympus America, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and others.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

SAN ANTONIO – In a large prospective, international cohort, food additive nitrates and nitrites, artificial sweeteners (especially aspartame and acesulfame-K), and dietary trans fatty acids were found to be associated with increased cancer risks.

The findings were reported in three poster presentations (P1-09-01, P1-09-02 and P3-12-35) at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium from the ongoing French NutriNet-Santé web-based study of 171,000 people that was launched in France in 2009 to investigate nutrition and health relationships. The authors of the analyses note that while evidence of deleterious health effects has been established for the dietary focus of their studies, and cancer risks have been suspected, strong evidence of a cancer association has been lacking.

Nitrates and nitrites are used in processed meats to increase shelf life and to avoid bacterial growth, said Eloi Chazelas, PhD, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN) at Sorbonne Paris Nord University. Dr. Chazelas looked at consumption of nitrites and nitrates through repeated 24 hour dietary records, linked to a comprehensive food composition database. The study’s main outcome measure was adjusted associations between nitrite and nitrate exposures and the risk of cancer (overall and by main cancer sites).

During follow-up, 966 breast and 400 prostate cancers were diagnosed among 3,311 first incident cancer cases. Breast cancer risk was elevated (HR = 1.24 [1.03-1.48], P = 0.02) among higher consumers of nitrates from food additives, especially with potassium nitrate consumption (HR = 1.25 [1.04-1.50], P = 0.01). Elevated prostate cancer risk was associated with nitrites (HR = 1.58 [1.14-2.18], P = 0.008), specifically for sodium nitrite (HR = 1.62 [1.17-2.25], P = 0.004). Nitrates and nitrites from natural sources were not associated significantly with higher cancer risk, Dr. Chazelas said.

He and his team found that food additive nitrates were positively associated with breast cancer risk, and food additive nitrites were positively associated with prostate cancer risk. “While these results need confirmation in other large-scale prospective studies, they provide new insights in a context of lively debate around the ban of nitrite additives in the food industry,” said Dr. Chazelas, who is a doctoral candidate at Sorbonne Paris Nord University.

In “Breast and prostate cancer risk associated with nitrites and nitrates from food additives (P1-09-01),” the study included 102,046 adults from the French NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort (2009-2021). It examined associations between artificial sweetener intakes (total from all dietary sources, the most frequently consumed ones [aspartame e951, acesulfame-K e950 and sucralose e955]) and cancer risk (overall and by sites: breast, prostate and obesity-related cancers).

Overall cancer risk in people who consumed higher amounts of total sweeteners (i.e. above the median exposure in consumers) was elevated (n = 2,527 cases, hazard ratio = 1.12, 95 percent confidence interval = 1.00-1.25, P-trend=0.005), especially for aspartame (HR = 1.20 [1.05-1.38] P = 0.001) and acesulfame-K (HR = 1.18 [1.04-1.34] P = 0.003). Elevated breast cancer risks (among 723 cases) were observed for total sweeteners (HR = 1.25 [1.02-1.53] P = 0.01), for aspartame (HR = 1.33 [1.05-1.69] P = 0.007), and for acesulfame-K (HR = 1.39 [1.11-1.74] P = 0.003). Also, obesity-related cancers (1,509 cases) were increased for total sweeteners (HR = 1.16 [1.00-1.33] P = 0.02), for aspartame (HR = 1.22 [1.02-1.45] P = 0.01) and for acesulfame-K (HR = 1.23 [1.04-1.45] P = 0.01).

Artificial sweeteners are found in more than 10,000 foods and beverages, said Charlotte Debras, a doctoral candidate in nutritional epidemiology at Sorbonne Paris Nord University. “These findings provide important and novel insights for the ongoing re-evaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies globally,” she said.
 

Trans fatty acid intakes and cancer risk

Investigating associations between trans fatty acid intake (total ruminant [rTFAs], industrial [iTFAs], and corresponding specific isomers and cancer risk), the analysis of Gaëlle Wendeu-Foyet, PhD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, found a total of 3,374 incident cancer cases (982 breast, 405 prostate) in an overall population of 104,909. Dietary intake of total TFAs was associated with higher prostate cancer risk (hazard ration for quartile 4 versus 1: 1.27, 1.11-1.77 P-trend = 0.005). Also, rTFAs were associated with increased overall cancer risk (1.16, 1.02-1.32 P-trend = 0.07), in particular the conjugated linoleic acid isomers (CLA) (1.19, 1.04-1.36 P-trend = 0.04). These associations were specifically observed for breast cancer (rTFAs: 1.35, 1.06-1.72 P-trend = 0.01; CLA: 1.29, 1.00-1.66 P-trend = 0.048), in particular before menopause (rTFAs: 1.68, 1.06-2.67 P-trend = 0.02; CLA: 2.013, 1.25-3.23 P-trend = 0.003). Several iTFAs were associated with overall (1.18, 1.06-1.31 P-trend = 0.02 for transdocosenoic acid), breast (isomer 18:2t: 1.30, 1.06-1.58 P-trend = 0.01; hexadecenoic acid: 1.28, 1.05-1.56 P-trend = 0.02) and prostate (transdocosenoic acid: 1.52, 1.09-2.12 P-trend = 0.07) cancer risks.

“These results support the WHO’s goal of achieving elimination from food supplies of industrially produced TFAs,” Dr. Foyet said. “The consumption of food products containing partially hydrogenated oils should be avoided.”

Nutrition, along with avoiding tobacco intake, is one of the main modifiable risk factors for chronic diseases. “There is a lot at stake in terms of prevention. This requires a combination of actions at the individual level to the public level by informing the public through food labeling,” Ms. Debras said.

It also requires influencing the context in which citizens evolve by encouraging manufacturers to improve their products (pricing policies, commitment charters for product reformulation, etc.), and limiting advertising and marketing for products of poor nutritional quality (especially among children),” she said.

SAN ANTONIO – In a large prospective, international cohort, food additive nitrates and nitrites, artificial sweeteners (especially aspartame and acesulfame-K), and dietary trans fatty acids were found to be associated with increased cancer risks.

The findings were reported in three poster presentations (P1-09-01, P1-09-02 and P3-12-35) at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium from the ongoing French NutriNet-Santé web-based study of 171,000 people that was launched in France in 2009 to investigate nutrition and health relationships. The authors of the analyses note that while evidence of deleterious health effects has been established for the dietary focus of their studies, and cancer risks have been suspected, strong evidence of a cancer association has been lacking.

Nitrates and nitrites are used in processed meats to increase shelf life and to avoid bacterial growth, said Eloi Chazelas, PhD, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN) at Sorbonne Paris Nord University. Dr. Chazelas looked at consumption of nitrites and nitrates through repeated 24 hour dietary records, linked to a comprehensive food composition database. The study’s main outcome measure was adjusted associations between nitrite and nitrate exposures and the risk of cancer (overall and by main cancer sites).

During follow-up, 966 breast and 400 prostate cancers were diagnosed among 3,311 first incident cancer cases. Breast cancer risk was elevated (HR = 1.24 [1.03-1.48], P = 0.02) among higher consumers of nitrates from food additives, especially with potassium nitrate consumption (HR = 1.25 [1.04-1.50], P = 0.01). Elevated prostate cancer risk was associated with nitrites (HR = 1.58 [1.14-2.18], P = 0.008), specifically for sodium nitrite (HR = 1.62 [1.17-2.25], P = 0.004). Nitrates and nitrites from natural sources were not associated significantly with higher cancer risk, Dr. Chazelas said.

He and his team found that food additive nitrates were positively associated with breast cancer risk, and food additive nitrites were positively associated with prostate cancer risk. “While these results need confirmation in other large-scale prospective studies, they provide new insights in a context of lively debate around the ban of nitrite additives in the food industry,” said Dr. Chazelas, who is a doctoral candidate at Sorbonne Paris Nord University.

In “Breast and prostate cancer risk associated with nitrites and nitrates from food additives (P1-09-01),” the study included 102,046 adults from the French NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort (2009-2021). It examined associations between artificial sweetener intakes (total from all dietary sources, the most frequently consumed ones [aspartame e951, acesulfame-K e950 and sucralose e955]) and cancer risk (overall and by sites: breast, prostate and obesity-related cancers).

Overall cancer risk in people who consumed higher amounts of total sweeteners (i.e. above the median exposure in consumers) was elevated (n = 2,527 cases, hazard ratio = 1.12, 95 percent confidence interval = 1.00-1.25, P-trend=0.005), especially for aspartame (HR = 1.20 [1.05-1.38] P = 0.001) and acesulfame-K (HR = 1.18 [1.04-1.34] P = 0.003). Elevated breast cancer risks (among 723 cases) were observed for total sweeteners (HR = 1.25 [1.02-1.53] P = 0.01), for aspartame (HR = 1.33 [1.05-1.69] P = 0.007), and for acesulfame-K (HR = 1.39 [1.11-1.74] P = 0.003). Also, obesity-related cancers (1,509 cases) were increased for total sweeteners (HR = 1.16 [1.00-1.33] P = 0.02), for aspartame (HR = 1.22 [1.02-1.45] P = 0.01) and for acesulfame-K (HR = 1.23 [1.04-1.45] P = 0.01).

Artificial sweeteners are found in more than 10,000 foods and beverages, said Charlotte Debras, a doctoral candidate in nutritional epidemiology at Sorbonne Paris Nord University. “These findings provide important and novel insights for the ongoing re-evaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies globally,” she said.
 

Trans fatty acid intakes and cancer risk

Investigating associations between trans fatty acid intake (total ruminant [rTFAs], industrial [iTFAs], and corresponding specific isomers and cancer risk), the analysis of Gaëlle Wendeu-Foyet, PhD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, found a total of 3,374 incident cancer cases (982 breast, 405 prostate) in an overall population of 104,909. Dietary intake of total TFAs was associated with higher prostate cancer risk (hazard ration for quartile 4 versus 1: 1.27, 1.11-1.77 P-trend = 0.005). Also, rTFAs were associated with increased overall cancer risk (1.16, 1.02-1.32 P-trend = 0.07), in particular the conjugated linoleic acid isomers (CLA) (1.19, 1.04-1.36 P-trend = 0.04). These associations were specifically observed for breast cancer (rTFAs: 1.35, 1.06-1.72 P-trend = 0.01; CLA: 1.29, 1.00-1.66 P-trend = 0.048), in particular before menopause (rTFAs: 1.68, 1.06-2.67 P-trend = 0.02; CLA: 2.013, 1.25-3.23 P-trend = 0.003). Several iTFAs were associated with overall (1.18, 1.06-1.31 P-trend = 0.02 for transdocosenoic acid), breast (isomer 18:2t: 1.30, 1.06-1.58 P-trend = 0.01; hexadecenoic acid: 1.28, 1.05-1.56 P-trend = 0.02) and prostate (transdocosenoic acid: 1.52, 1.09-2.12 P-trend = 0.07) cancer risks.

“These results support the WHO’s goal of achieving elimination from food supplies of industrially produced TFAs,” Dr. Foyet said. “The consumption of food products containing partially hydrogenated oils should be avoided.”

Nutrition, along with avoiding tobacco intake, is one of the main modifiable risk factors for chronic diseases. “There is a lot at stake in terms of prevention. This requires a combination of actions at the individual level to the public level by informing the public through food labeling,” Ms. Debras said.

It also requires influencing the context in which citizens evolve by encouraging manufacturers to improve their products (pricing policies, commitment charters for product reformulation, etc.), and limiting advertising and marketing for products of poor nutritional quality (especially among children),” she said.

SAN ANTONIO – In a large prospective, international cohort, food additive nitrates and nitrites, artificial sweeteners (especially aspartame and acesulfame-K), and dietary trans fatty acids were found to be associated with increased cancer risks.

The findings were reported in three poster presentations (P1-09-01, P1-09-02 and P3-12-35) at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium from the ongoing French NutriNet-Santé web-based study of 171,000 people that was launched in France in 2009 to investigate nutrition and health relationships. The authors of the analyses note that while evidence of deleterious health effects has been established for the dietary focus of their studies, and cancer risks have been suspected, strong evidence of a cancer association has been lacking.

Nitrates and nitrites are used in processed meats to increase shelf life and to avoid bacterial growth, said Eloi Chazelas, PhD, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN) at Sorbonne Paris Nord University. Dr. Chazelas looked at consumption of nitrites and nitrates through repeated 24 hour dietary records, linked to a comprehensive food composition database. The study’s main outcome measure was adjusted associations between nitrite and nitrate exposures and the risk of cancer (overall and by main cancer sites).

During follow-up, 966 breast and 400 prostate cancers were diagnosed among 3,311 first incident cancer cases. Breast cancer risk was elevated (HR = 1.24 [1.03-1.48], P = 0.02) among higher consumers of nitrates from food additives, especially with potassium nitrate consumption (HR = 1.25 [1.04-1.50], P = 0.01). Elevated prostate cancer risk was associated with nitrites (HR = 1.58 [1.14-2.18], P = 0.008), specifically for sodium nitrite (HR = 1.62 [1.17-2.25], P = 0.004). Nitrates and nitrites from natural sources were not associated significantly with higher cancer risk, Dr. Chazelas said.

He and his team found that food additive nitrates were positively associated with breast cancer risk, and food additive nitrites were positively associated with prostate cancer risk. “While these results need confirmation in other large-scale prospective studies, they provide new insights in a context of lively debate around the ban of nitrite additives in the food industry,” said Dr. Chazelas, who is a doctoral candidate at Sorbonne Paris Nord University.

In “Breast and prostate cancer risk associated with nitrites and nitrates from food additives (P1-09-01),” the study included 102,046 adults from the French NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort (2009-2021). It examined associations between artificial sweetener intakes (total from all dietary sources, the most frequently consumed ones [aspartame e951, acesulfame-K e950 and sucralose e955]) and cancer risk (overall and by sites: breast, prostate and obesity-related cancers).

Overall cancer risk in people who consumed higher amounts of total sweeteners (i.e. above the median exposure in consumers) was elevated (n = 2,527 cases, hazard ratio = 1.12, 95 percent confidence interval = 1.00-1.25, P-trend=0.005), especially for aspartame (HR = 1.20 [1.05-1.38] P = 0.001) and acesulfame-K (HR = 1.18 [1.04-1.34] P = 0.003). Elevated breast cancer risks (among 723 cases) were observed for total sweeteners (HR = 1.25 [1.02-1.53] P = 0.01), for aspartame (HR = 1.33 [1.05-1.69] P = 0.007), and for acesulfame-K (HR = 1.39 [1.11-1.74] P = 0.003). Also, obesity-related cancers (1,509 cases) were increased for total sweeteners (HR = 1.16 [1.00-1.33] P = 0.02), for aspartame (HR = 1.22 [1.02-1.45] P = 0.01) and for acesulfame-K (HR = 1.23 [1.04-1.45] P = 0.01).

Artificial sweeteners are found in more than 10,000 foods and beverages, said Charlotte Debras, a doctoral candidate in nutritional epidemiology at Sorbonne Paris Nord University. “These findings provide important and novel insights for the ongoing re-evaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies globally,” she said.
 

Trans fatty acid intakes and cancer risk

Investigating associations between trans fatty acid intake (total ruminant [rTFAs], industrial [iTFAs], and corresponding specific isomers and cancer risk), the analysis of Gaëlle Wendeu-Foyet, PhD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, found a total of 3,374 incident cancer cases (982 breast, 405 prostate) in an overall population of 104,909. Dietary intake of total TFAs was associated with higher prostate cancer risk (hazard ration for quartile 4 versus 1: 1.27, 1.11-1.77 P-trend = 0.005). Also, rTFAs were associated with increased overall cancer risk (1.16, 1.02-1.32 P-trend = 0.07), in particular the conjugated linoleic acid isomers (CLA) (1.19, 1.04-1.36 P-trend = 0.04). These associations were specifically observed for breast cancer (rTFAs: 1.35, 1.06-1.72 P-trend = 0.01; CLA: 1.29, 1.00-1.66 P-trend = 0.048), in particular before menopause (rTFAs: 1.68, 1.06-2.67 P-trend = 0.02; CLA: 2.013, 1.25-3.23 P-trend = 0.003). Several iTFAs were associated with overall (1.18, 1.06-1.31 P-trend = 0.02 for transdocosenoic acid), breast (isomer 18:2t: 1.30, 1.06-1.58 P-trend = 0.01; hexadecenoic acid: 1.28, 1.05-1.56 P-trend = 0.02) and prostate (transdocosenoic acid: 1.52, 1.09-2.12 P-trend = 0.07) cancer risks.

“These results support the WHO’s goal of achieving elimination from food supplies of industrially produced TFAs,” Dr. Foyet said. “The consumption of food products containing partially hydrogenated oils should be avoided.”

Nutrition, along with avoiding tobacco intake, is one of the main modifiable risk factors for chronic diseases. “There is a lot at stake in terms of prevention. This requires a combination of actions at the individual level to the public level by informing the public through food labeling,” Ms. Debras said.

It also requires influencing the context in which citizens evolve by encouraging manufacturers to improve their products (pricing policies, commitment charters for product reformulation, etc.), and limiting advertising and marketing for products of poor nutritional quality (especially among children),” she said.

SAN ANTONIO – Breast cancer survivors with chronic musculoskeletal pain may experience relief from pain with electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture, according to a new study recently presented at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Both techniques led to clinically meaningful and persistent reduction of pain, but electroacupuncture was more effective in reducing pain severity, according to study author Wanqing Iris Zhi, MD, PhD, of the Breast Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Among breast cancer survivors, Dr. Zhi said, chronic musculoskeletal pain is common and debilitating. In earlier results of the PEACE (Personalized Electroacupuncture versus Auricular Acupuncture Comparative Effectiveness) trial, both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture improved pain control better than usual care in cancer survivors. The comparative effectiveness between electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture among breast cancer survivors, specifically for chronic musculoskeletal pain, remains unknown.

To evaluate potential differences between electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture, Dr. Zhi et al. examined data from PEACE, a three-arm, parallel, single center randomized trial investigating electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture for chronic musculoskeletal pain, compared with usual care. Among 360 cancer survivors in PEACE, mean age in 165 cancer survivors with a primary diagnosis of breast cancer was 60.3 years (35.8 percent non-White) with a mean of 5.4 years since their cancer diagnoses. Patients in both the electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture groups received 10 weekly treatments. Change in mean Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity from baseline to week 12 was the primary endpoint, with BPI change to week 24 as a secondary endpoint. Usual care patients, after week 12, could receive 10 electroacupuncture treatments.

The most common locations of chronic musculoskeletal pain, Dr. Zhi observed, were lower back (24 percent), knee/leg (24 percent) and shoulder/elbow (14 percent). About 70 percent of patients were taking pain medication. Both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture were associated with clinically meaningful and persistent pain reductions among the evaluated breast cancer survivors. The change in BPI severity from baseline to week 12 was –0.29 (confidence interval, –0.08, 0.28) in the UC group. In the electroacupuncture group it was –2.65 (CI, –3.06, –2.25; P ≤0.001 from baseline) and –2.37 versus usual care (CI, –3.05, –1.68; P ≤0.001 versus UC). For the auricular acupuncture group, the change from baseline was –1.75 (CI, –2.15, –1.35; P ≤0.001 from baseline) and –1.46 versus usual care (CI, –2.14, –0.78; P ≤0.001 versus UC). The difference in BPI pain severity reduction from baseline between electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture of –0.90 (CI, –1.45, –0.36) was statistically significant (P ≤0.001). Electroacupuncture also reduced pain severity significantly more than auricular acupuncture at week 24 (CI, –0.82, [–1.38, –0.27], P = 0.004).

Dr. Zhi concluded that among breast cancer survivors, although both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture were associated with clinically meaningful and persistent pain reduction, electroacupuncture was more effective at reducing pain severity.

She pointed out also that neither surgery type (mastectomy versus lumpectomy; P = 0.83) nor aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen versus neither (P = 0.59) was associated with BPI/severity response among electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture patients.

“Both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture are significantly better than usual care, so it suggests that both acupuncture methods can be utilized for treating chronic muscle skeletal pain in breast cancer survivors, but electroacupuncture is preferred,” Dr. Zhi said.

“Auricular acupuncture can be more painful,” said PEACE principal investigator Jun Mao, MD, who is chair of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering. “Ten percent of women could not tolerate the ear pain or discomfort. Electroacupuncture is generally well tolerated. People are more relaxed after treatment. If both are available, start with electroacupuncture,” he said.

SAN ANTONIO – Breast cancer survivors with chronic musculoskeletal pain may experience relief from pain with electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture, according to a new study recently presented at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Both techniques led to clinically meaningful and persistent reduction of pain, but electroacupuncture was more effective in reducing pain severity, according to study author Wanqing Iris Zhi, MD, PhD, of the Breast Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Among breast cancer survivors, Dr. Zhi said, chronic musculoskeletal pain is common and debilitating. In earlier results of the PEACE (Personalized Electroacupuncture versus Auricular Acupuncture Comparative Effectiveness) trial, both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture improved pain control better than usual care in cancer survivors. The comparative effectiveness between electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture among breast cancer survivors, specifically for chronic musculoskeletal pain, remains unknown.

To evaluate potential differences between electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture, Dr. Zhi et al. examined data from PEACE, a three-arm, parallel, single center randomized trial investigating electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture for chronic musculoskeletal pain, compared with usual care. Among 360 cancer survivors in PEACE, mean age in 165 cancer survivors with a primary diagnosis of breast cancer was 60.3 years (35.8 percent non-White) with a mean of 5.4 years since their cancer diagnoses. Patients in both the electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture groups received 10 weekly treatments. Change in mean Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity from baseline to week 12 was the primary endpoint, with BPI change to week 24 as a secondary endpoint. Usual care patients, after week 12, could receive 10 electroacupuncture treatments.

The most common locations of chronic musculoskeletal pain, Dr. Zhi observed, were lower back (24 percent), knee/leg (24 percent) and shoulder/elbow (14 percent). About 70 percent of patients were taking pain medication. Both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture were associated with clinically meaningful and persistent pain reductions among the evaluated breast cancer survivors. The change in BPI severity from baseline to week 12 was –0.29 (confidence interval, –0.08, 0.28) in the UC group. In the electroacupuncture group it was –2.65 (CI, –3.06, –2.25; P ≤0.001 from baseline) and –2.37 versus usual care (CI, –3.05, –1.68; P ≤0.001 versus UC). For the auricular acupuncture group, the change from baseline was –1.75 (CI, –2.15, –1.35; P ≤0.001 from baseline) and –1.46 versus usual care (CI, –2.14, –0.78; P ≤0.001 versus UC). The difference in BPI pain severity reduction from baseline between electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture of –0.90 (CI, –1.45, –0.36) was statistically significant (P ≤0.001). Electroacupuncture also reduced pain severity significantly more than auricular acupuncture at week 24 (CI, –0.82, [–1.38, –0.27], P = 0.004).

Dr. Zhi concluded that among breast cancer survivors, although both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture were associated with clinically meaningful and persistent pain reduction, electroacupuncture was more effective at reducing pain severity.

She pointed out also that neither surgery type (mastectomy versus lumpectomy; P = 0.83) nor aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen versus neither (P = 0.59) was associated with BPI/severity response among electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture patients.

“Both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture are significantly better than usual care, so it suggests that both acupuncture methods can be utilized for treating chronic muscle skeletal pain in breast cancer survivors, but electroacupuncture is preferred,” Dr. Zhi said.

“Auricular acupuncture can be more painful,” said PEACE principal investigator Jun Mao, MD, who is chair of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering. “Ten percent of women could not tolerate the ear pain or discomfort. Electroacupuncture is generally well tolerated. People are more relaxed after treatment. If both are available, start with electroacupuncture,” he said.

SAN ANTONIO – Breast cancer survivors with chronic musculoskeletal pain may experience relief from pain with electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture, according to a new study recently presented at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Both techniques led to clinically meaningful and persistent reduction of pain, but electroacupuncture was more effective in reducing pain severity, according to study author Wanqing Iris Zhi, MD, PhD, of the Breast Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Among breast cancer survivors, Dr. Zhi said, chronic musculoskeletal pain is common and debilitating. In earlier results of the PEACE (Personalized Electroacupuncture versus Auricular Acupuncture Comparative Effectiveness) trial, both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture improved pain control better than usual care in cancer survivors. The comparative effectiveness between electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture among breast cancer survivors, specifically for chronic musculoskeletal pain, remains unknown.

To evaluate potential differences between electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture, Dr. Zhi et al. examined data from PEACE, a three-arm, parallel, single center randomized trial investigating electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture for chronic musculoskeletal pain, compared with usual care. Among 360 cancer survivors in PEACE, mean age in 165 cancer survivors with a primary diagnosis of breast cancer was 60.3 years (35.8 percent non-White) with a mean of 5.4 years since their cancer diagnoses. Patients in both the electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture groups received 10 weekly treatments. Change in mean Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity from baseline to week 12 was the primary endpoint, with BPI change to week 24 as a secondary endpoint. Usual care patients, after week 12, could receive 10 electroacupuncture treatments.

The most common locations of chronic musculoskeletal pain, Dr. Zhi observed, were lower back (24 percent), knee/leg (24 percent) and shoulder/elbow (14 percent). About 70 percent of patients were taking pain medication. Both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture were associated with clinically meaningful and persistent pain reductions among the evaluated breast cancer survivors. The change in BPI severity from baseline to week 12 was –0.29 (confidence interval, –0.08, 0.28) in the UC group. In the electroacupuncture group it was –2.65 (CI, –3.06, –2.25; P ≤0.001 from baseline) and –2.37 versus usual care (CI, –3.05, –1.68; P ≤0.001 versus UC). For the auricular acupuncture group, the change from baseline was –1.75 (CI, –2.15, –1.35; P ≤0.001 from baseline) and –1.46 versus usual care (CI, –2.14, –0.78; P ≤0.001 versus UC). The difference in BPI pain severity reduction from baseline between electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture of –0.90 (CI, –1.45, –0.36) was statistically significant (P ≤0.001). Electroacupuncture also reduced pain severity significantly more than auricular acupuncture at week 24 (CI, –0.82, [–1.38, –0.27], P = 0.004).

Dr. Zhi concluded that among breast cancer survivors, although both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture were associated with clinically meaningful and persistent pain reduction, electroacupuncture was more effective at reducing pain severity.

She pointed out also that neither surgery type (mastectomy versus lumpectomy; P = 0.83) nor aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen versus neither (P = 0.59) was associated with BPI/severity response among electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture patients.

“Both electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture are significantly better than usual care, so it suggests that both acupuncture methods can be utilized for treating chronic muscle skeletal pain in breast cancer survivors, but electroacupuncture is preferred,” Dr. Zhi said.

“Auricular acupuncture can be more painful,” said PEACE principal investigator Jun Mao, MD, who is chair of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering. “Ten percent of women could not tolerate the ear pain or discomfort. Electroacupuncture is generally well tolerated. People are more relaxed after treatment. If both are available, start with electroacupuncture,” he said.

New research provides more evidence that antipsychotics that raise prolactin levels are tied to a significantly increased risk for breast cancer.

The relative risk for breast cancer was 62% higher in women who took category 1 antipsychotic medications associated with high prolactin levels. These include haloperidol (Haldol), paliperidone (Invega), and risperidone (Risperdal). Additionally, the risk was 54% higher in those taking category 2 antipsychotics that have mid-range effects on prolactin. These include iloperidone (Fanapt), lurasidone (Latuda), and olanzapine (Zyprexa).

In contrast, category 3 antipsychotics which have a lesser effect on prolactin levels were not associated with any increase in breast cancer risk. These drugs include aripiprazole (Abilify), asenapine (Saphris), brexpiprazole (Rexulti), cariprazine (Vraylar), clozapine (multiple brands), quetiapine (Seroquel), and ziprasidone (Geodon).

While the “absolute” breast cancer risk for these drugs is unclear, “we can make the case that high circulating prolactin levels are associated with breast cancer risk. This follows what is already known about prolactin from prior studies, notably the nurses’ health studies,” Tahir Rahman, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, told this news organization.

“We don’t want to alarm patients taking antipsychotic drugs for life-threatening mental health problems, but we also think it is time for doctors to track prolactin levels and vigilantly monitor their patients who are being treated with antipsychotics,” Dr. Rahman added in a news release.

The study was published online Dec. 3 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.
 

Test prolactin levels

Using administrative claims data, the researchers evaluated breast cancer risk in women aged 18-64 exposed to antipsychotic medications compared with anticonvulsants and/or lithium. 

They identified 914 cases of invasive breast cancer among 540,737 women.

Roughly 52% of the study population filled at least one prescription for a category 3 antipsychotic agent, whereas 15% filled at least one prescription for a category 1 agent; 49% of women filled at least one prescription for an anticonvulsant medication during the study period.

Exposure to all antipsychotics was independently associated with a 35% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.61), the study team found.

Compared with anticonvulsants or lithium, the risk for breast cancer was significantly increased for high prolactin (category 1) antipsychotics (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.30-2.03) and for mid-prolactin (category 2) drugs (aHR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.19-1.99), with no increased risk for category 3 antipsychotics.

“Our research is obviously of interest for preventing breast cancer in antipsychotic-treated patients. Checking a blood prolactin level is cheap and easy [and a high level is] fairly simple to mitigate,” said Dr. Rahman.
 

A matter of debate

Reached for comment, Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said, “The potential elevation of breast cancer risk depending on the dose and time of treatment with antipsychotic medications with varying degrees of prolactin-raising properties has been a topic of research and matter of debate.”

This new study “adds another data point indicating that antipsychotics that are associated on average with a higher prolactin-raising effect than other antipsychotics may increase the risk of breast cancer in women to some degree,” said Dr. Correll, who was not involved with the study.

However, he cautioned that “naturalistic data are always vulnerable to residual confounding, for example, unmeasured effects that could also at least partially explain the results, and the follow-up time of only 4 years (maximum 6 years) in this study was relatively short.

“Nevertheless, given availability of many different antipsychotics with varying degrees of prolactin-raising potential, in women requiring antipsychotic treatment, less prolactin-raising antipsychotics may be preferable,” Dr. Correll said.

“In women receiving prolactin-raising antipsychotics for medium- and longer-term maintenance therapy, prolactin levels should be monitored,” he added.

When an elevated prolactin level is detected, this should be addressed “either via dose reduction, a switch to an alternative antipsychotic that does not raise prolactin levels significantly, or the addition of a partial or full D2 agonist when the prolactin-raising antipsychotic should be continued based on individualized risk assessment,” Dr. Correll advised.

This work was supported by an award from the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center; the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research; and the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll has received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma.

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

New research provides more evidence that antipsychotics that raise prolactin levels are tied to a significantly increased risk for breast cancer.

The relative risk for breast cancer was 62% higher in women who took category 1 antipsychotic medications associated with high prolactin levels. These include haloperidol (Haldol), paliperidone (Invega), and risperidone (Risperdal). Additionally, the risk was 54% higher in those taking category 2 antipsychotics that have mid-range effects on prolactin. These include iloperidone (Fanapt), lurasidone (Latuda), and olanzapine (Zyprexa).

In contrast, category 3 antipsychotics which have a lesser effect on prolactin levels were not associated with any increase in breast cancer risk. These drugs include aripiprazole (Abilify), asenapine (Saphris), brexpiprazole (Rexulti), cariprazine (Vraylar), clozapine (multiple brands), quetiapine (Seroquel), and ziprasidone (Geodon).

While the “absolute” breast cancer risk for these drugs is unclear, “we can make the case that high circulating prolactin levels are associated with breast cancer risk. This follows what is already known about prolactin from prior studies, notably the nurses’ health studies,” Tahir Rahman, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, told this news organization.

“We don’t want to alarm patients taking antipsychotic drugs for life-threatening mental health problems, but we also think it is time for doctors to track prolactin levels and vigilantly monitor their patients who are being treated with antipsychotics,” Dr. Rahman added in a news release.

The study was published online Dec. 3 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.
 

Test prolactin levels

Using administrative claims data, the researchers evaluated breast cancer risk in women aged 18-64 exposed to antipsychotic medications compared with anticonvulsants and/or lithium. 

They identified 914 cases of invasive breast cancer among 540,737 women.

Roughly 52% of the study population filled at least one prescription for a category 3 antipsychotic agent, whereas 15% filled at least one prescription for a category 1 agent; 49% of women filled at least one prescription for an anticonvulsant medication during the study period.

Exposure to all antipsychotics was independently associated with a 35% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.61), the study team found.

Compared with anticonvulsants or lithium, the risk for breast cancer was significantly increased for high prolactin (category 1) antipsychotics (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.30-2.03) and for mid-prolactin (category 2) drugs (aHR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.19-1.99), with no increased risk for category 3 antipsychotics.

“Our research is obviously of interest for preventing breast cancer in antipsychotic-treated patients. Checking a blood prolactin level is cheap and easy [and a high level is] fairly simple to mitigate,” said Dr. Rahman.
 

A matter of debate

Reached for comment, Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said, “The potential elevation of breast cancer risk depending on the dose and time of treatment with antipsychotic medications with varying degrees of prolactin-raising properties has been a topic of research and matter of debate.”

This new study “adds another data point indicating that antipsychotics that are associated on average with a higher prolactin-raising effect than other antipsychotics may increase the risk of breast cancer in women to some degree,” said Dr. Correll, who was not involved with the study.

However, he cautioned that “naturalistic data are always vulnerable to residual confounding, for example, unmeasured effects that could also at least partially explain the results, and the follow-up time of only 4 years (maximum 6 years) in this study was relatively short.

“Nevertheless, given availability of many different antipsychotics with varying degrees of prolactin-raising potential, in women requiring antipsychotic treatment, less prolactin-raising antipsychotics may be preferable,” Dr. Correll said.

“In women receiving prolactin-raising antipsychotics for medium- and longer-term maintenance therapy, prolactin levels should be monitored,” he added.

When an elevated prolactin level is detected, this should be addressed “either via dose reduction, a switch to an alternative antipsychotic that does not raise prolactin levels significantly, or the addition of a partial or full D2 agonist when the prolactin-raising antipsychotic should be continued based on individualized risk assessment,” Dr. Correll advised.

This work was supported by an award from the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center; the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research; and the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll has received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma.

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

New research provides more evidence that antipsychotics that raise prolactin levels are tied to a significantly increased risk for breast cancer.

The relative risk for breast cancer was 62% higher in women who took category 1 antipsychotic medications associated with high prolactin levels. These include haloperidol (Haldol), paliperidone (Invega), and risperidone (Risperdal). Additionally, the risk was 54% higher in those taking category 2 antipsychotics that have mid-range effects on prolactin. These include iloperidone (Fanapt), lurasidone (Latuda), and olanzapine (Zyprexa).

In contrast, category 3 antipsychotics which have a lesser effect on prolactin levels were not associated with any increase in breast cancer risk. These drugs include aripiprazole (Abilify), asenapine (Saphris), brexpiprazole (Rexulti), cariprazine (Vraylar), clozapine (multiple brands), quetiapine (Seroquel), and ziprasidone (Geodon).

While the “absolute” breast cancer risk for these drugs is unclear, “we can make the case that high circulating prolactin levels are associated with breast cancer risk. This follows what is already known about prolactin from prior studies, notably the nurses’ health studies,” Tahir Rahman, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, told this news organization.

“We don’t want to alarm patients taking antipsychotic drugs for life-threatening mental health problems, but we also think it is time for doctors to track prolactin levels and vigilantly monitor their patients who are being treated with antipsychotics,” Dr. Rahman added in a news release.

The study was published online Dec. 3 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.
 

Test prolactin levels

Using administrative claims data, the researchers evaluated breast cancer risk in women aged 18-64 exposed to antipsychotic medications compared with anticonvulsants and/or lithium. 

They identified 914 cases of invasive breast cancer among 540,737 women.

Roughly 52% of the study population filled at least one prescription for a category 3 antipsychotic agent, whereas 15% filled at least one prescription for a category 1 agent; 49% of women filled at least one prescription for an anticonvulsant medication during the study period.

Exposure to all antipsychotics was independently associated with a 35% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.61), the study team found.

Compared with anticonvulsants or lithium, the risk for breast cancer was significantly increased for high prolactin (category 1) antipsychotics (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.30-2.03) and for mid-prolactin (category 2) drugs (aHR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.19-1.99), with no increased risk for category 3 antipsychotics.

“Our research is obviously of interest for preventing breast cancer in antipsychotic-treated patients. Checking a blood prolactin level is cheap and easy [and a high level is] fairly simple to mitigate,” said Dr. Rahman.
 

A matter of debate

Reached for comment, Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said, “The potential elevation of breast cancer risk depending on the dose and time of treatment with antipsychotic medications with varying degrees of prolactin-raising properties has been a topic of research and matter of debate.”

This new study “adds another data point indicating that antipsychotics that are associated on average with a higher prolactin-raising effect than other antipsychotics may increase the risk of breast cancer in women to some degree,” said Dr. Correll, who was not involved with the study.

However, he cautioned that “naturalistic data are always vulnerable to residual confounding, for example, unmeasured effects that could also at least partially explain the results, and the follow-up time of only 4 years (maximum 6 years) in this study was relatively short.

“Nevertheless, given availability of many different antipsychotics with varying degrees of prolactin-raising potential, in women requiring antipsychotic treatment, less prolactin-raising antipsychotics may be preferable,” Dr. Correll said.

“In women receiving prolactin-raising antipsychotics for medium- and longer-term maintenance therapy, prolactin levels should be monitored,” he added.

When an elevated prolactin level is detected, this should be addressed “either via dose reduction, a switch to an alternative antipsychotic that does not raise prolactin levels significantly, or the addition of a partial or full D2 agonist when the prolactin-raising antipsychotic should be continued based on individualized risk assessment,” Dr. Correll advised.

This work was supported by an award from the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center; the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research; and the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll has received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma.

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

Black women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have outcomes in response to the antibody–drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG) (Trodelvy, Gilead) comparable to those of the overall patient population, with the drug showing similar efficacy and safety, shows a prespecified analysis of ASCENT.

A heterogenous disease with few treatment options and poor outcomes, mTNBC has an incidence rate twice as high in Black as in White women.

Black women with mTNBC may also experience worse outcomes than other groups, with a greater risk of mortality related to disparities in access to health care and in income, delays in treatment, a higher prevalence of comorbidities, and differences in tumor biology.

Previously presented data from the phase 3 ASCENT trial showed that SG nearly doubled overall survival versus single-agent chemotherapy in pretreated women with mTNBC, with the benefit observed across patient subgroups.

Based on these findings, the Food and Drug Administration approved SG for patients with mTNBC who have received at least two prior chemotherapies, at least one of which is to have been given in the metastatic setting.

Now, an analysis of the ASCENT data in just over 60 Black women with mTNBC showed that they can expect to see their progression-free survival (PFS) improve by 56% and their overall survival increase by a nonsignificant 36% when given SG as opposed to single-agent chemotherapy.

The research (abstract P5-16-07) was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 10.

The team says that Black women with mTNBC “derived a similar clinical benefit” from SG versus chemotherapy to other women in the study, and had a “manageable” safety profile, which was “consistent with the full trial population.”

Consequently, SG “should be considered a treatment option for Black patients with mTNBC who have received ≥ 2 prior chemotherapies,” at least one of which having been given in the metastatic setting.

Lead researcher Lisa A. Carey, MD, told this news organiztion that it is “very important” to show that the drug works in Black patients, adding: “We know that certain drugs don’t perform so well and it’s also true that people of color are particularly affected by TNBC.”

She said there were “only 62” Black patients in ASCENT, “so if you look at the entire trial and make assumptions that the drug performs the same in all the subsets, then sometimes you’re wrong.”

Dr. Carey, the Richardson and Marilyn Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor in Breast Cancer Research, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, N.C., said there is “emerging interest” in racial disparities in cancer outcomes.

“Black patients have more trouble with access to care,” she said, noting that “in trial populations, [the outcomes] generally seem similar because the patients who go onto the trials tend to be those that can participate, but you never know until you look.”

Overall, Dr. Carey said the current results suggest that, “at least from the standpoint of the therapeutic implications of this drug – which is really a pretty remarkable drug in the overall study – it behaves very similarly in this group.”

Jennifer K. Litton, MD, vice president of clinical research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said: “We have known that minority patients, especially Black patients, have a higher rate of triple negative breast cancer and aggressive biologies, and have had worse breast cancer outcomes in many published series.”

She told this news organization that, “additionally, they are often underrepresented in breast cancer clinical trials.”

Dr. Litton said “the very favorable outcomes” reported in “this important subset of patients who participated in the ASCENT trial” confirm the use of SG in patients with mTNBC.

To examine the clinical outcomes of Black patients in the ASCENT study, the team conduced a prespecified analysis of participants self-reporting Black race who had been randomized to SG or single-agent chemotherapy of physician’s choice, including those with and without brain metastases.

Of the 529 patients enrolled to ASCENT, 62 (12%) were Black, of whom 28 were assigned to SG and 34 to single agent chemotherapy. The two groups were generally well balanced, although six patients in the chemotherapy arm had known brain metastases at baseline versus none of those given SG.

After a median treatment duration of 5.3 months with SG and 1.6 months for single-agent chemotherapy, there was a significant improvement in PFS with SG, at 5.4 months versus 2.2 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.44 (P = .008).

There was also a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival with SG at 13.8 months versus 8.5 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .159).

The objective response rate was 32% with SG versus 6% in patients given chemotherapy, while the median duration of response was 9.2 months in the SG arm and not evaluable for chemotherapy.

The researchers note that these efficacy findings were “consistent” with those seen in the full ASCENT study population.

In terms of safety, the most common treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, seen in 64% of SG and 61% of chemotherapy patients, diarrhea in 64% and 13%, respectively, and fatigue, in 52% and 39%, respectively.

The most common grade ≥3 events were neutropenia, in 48% and 42% of SG and chemotherapy patients, respectively, followed by anemia, in 12% and 6%, respectively, leukopenia in 8% and 16%, respectively, and febrile neutropenia in 8% and 3%, respectively.

No treatment-related deaths occurred in either treatment arm.

Dose reduction due to treatment-emergent adverse events was recorded in 28% of patients receiving SG and 35% of those assigned to single-agent chemotherapy, and discontinuations occurred in 0% and 3%, respectively.

The study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Carey reports research funding from Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, and GSK; spouse serves on the board of Falcon Therapeutics.

Black women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have outcomes in response to the antibody–drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG) (Trodelvy, Gilead) comparable to those of the overall patient population, with the drug showing similar efficacy and safety, shows a prespecified analysis of ASCENT.

A heterogenous disease with few treatment options and poor outcomes, mTNBC has an incidence rate twice as high in Black as in White women.

Black women with mTNBC may also experience worse outcomes than other groups, with a greater risk of mortality related to disparities in access to health care and in income, delays in treatment, a higher prevalence of comorbidities, and differences in tumor biology.

Previously presented data from the phase 3 ASCENT trial showed that SG nearly doubled overall survival versus single-agent chemotherapy in pretreated women with mTNBC, with the benefit observed across patient subgroups.

Based on these findings, the Food and Drug Administration approved SG for patients with mTNBC who have received at least two prior chemotherapies, at least one of which is to have been given in the metastatic setting.

Now, an analysis of the ASCENT data in just over 60 Black women with mTNBC showed that they can expect to see their progression-free survival (PFS) improve by 56% and their overall survival increase by a nonsignificant 36% when given SG as opposed to single-agent chemotherapy.

The research (abstract P5-16-07) was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 10.

The team says that Black women with mTNBC “derived a similar clinical benefit” from SG versus chemotherapy to other women in the study, and had a “manageable” safety profile, which was “consistent with the full trial population.”

Consequently, SG “should be considered a treatment option for Black patients with mTNBC who have received ≥ 2 prior chemotherapies,” at least one of which having been given in the metastatic setting.

Lead researcher Lisa A. Carey, MD, told this news organiztion that it is “very important” to show that the drug works in Black patients, adding: “We know that certain drugs don’t perform so well and it’s also true that people of color are particularly affected by TNBC.”

She said there were “only 62” Black patients in ASCENT, “so if you look at the entire trial and make assumptions that the drug performs the same in all the subsets, then sometimes you’re wrong.”

Dr. Carey, the Richardson and Marilyn Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor in Breast Cancer Research, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, N.C., said there is “emerging interest” in racial disparities in cancer outcomes.

“Black patients have more trouble with access to care,” she said, noting that “in trial populations, [the outcomes] generally seem similar because the patients who go onto the trials tend to be those that can participate, but you never know until you look.”

Overall, Dr. Carey said the current results suggest that, “at least from the standpoint of the therapeutic implications of this drug – which is really a pretty remarkable drug in the overall study – it behaves very similarly in this group.”

Jennifer K. Litton, MD, vice president of clinical research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said: “We have known that minority patients, especially Black patients, have a higher rate of triple negative breast cancer and aggressive biologies, and have had worse breast cancer outcomes in many published series.”

She told this news organization that, “additionally, they are often underrepresented in breast cancer clinical trials.”

Dr. Litton said “the very favorable outcomes” reported in “this important subset of patients who participated in the ASCENT trial” confirm the use of SG in patients with mTNBC.

To examine the clinical outcomes of Black patients in the ASCENT study, the team conduced a prespecified analysis of participants self-reporting Black race who had been randomized to SG or single-agent chemotherapy of physician’s choice, including those with and without brain metastases.

Of the 529 patients enrolled to ASCENT, 62 (12%) were Black, of whom 28 were assigned to SG and 34 to single agent chemotherapy. The two groups were generally well balanced, although six patients in the chemotherapy arm had known brain metastases at baseline versus none of those given SG.

After a median treatment duration of 5.3 months with SG and 1.6 months for single-agent chemotherapy, there was a significant improvement in PFS with SG, at 5.4 months versus 2.2 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.44 (P = .008).

There was also a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival with SG at 13.8 months versus 8.5 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .159).

The objective response rate was 32% with SG versus 6% in patients given chemotherapy, while the median duration of response was 9.2 months in the SG arm and not evaluable for chemotherapy.

The researchers note that these efficacy findings were “consistent” with those seen in the full ASCENT study population.

In terms of safety, the most common treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, seen in 64% of SG and 61% of chemotherapy patients, diarrhea in 64% and 13%, respectively, and fatigue, in 52% and 39%, respectively.

The most common grade ≥3 events were neutropenia, in 48% and 42% of SG and chemotherapy patients, respectively, followed by anemia, in 12% and 6%, respectively, leukopenia in 8% and 16%, respectively, and febrile neutropenia in 8% and 3%, respectively.

No treatment-related deaths occurred in either treatment arm.

Dose reduction due to treatment-emergent adverse events was recorded in 28% of patients receiving SG and 35% of those assigned to single-agent chemotherapy, and discontinuations occurred in 0% and 3%, respectively.

The study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Carey reports research funding from Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, and GSK; spouse serves on the board of Falcon Therapeutics.

Black women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have outcomes in response to the antibody–drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG) (Trodelvy, Gilead) comparable to those of the overall patient population, with the drug showing similar efficacy and safety, shows a prespecified analysis of ASCENT.

A heterogenous disease with few treatment options and poor outcomes, mTNBC has an incidence rate twice as high in Black as in White women.

Black women with mTNBC may also experience worse outcomes than other groups, with a greater risk of mortality related to disparities in access to health care and in income, delays in treatment, a higher prevalence of comorbidities, and differences in tumor biology.

Previously presented data from the phase 3 ASCENT trial showed that SG nearly doubled overall survival versus single-agent chemotherapy in pretreated women with mTNBC, with the benefit observed across patient subgroups.

Based on these findings, the Food and Drug Administration approved SG for patients with mTNBC who have received at least two prior chemotherapies, at least one of which is to have been given in the metastatic setting.

Now, an analysis of the ASCENT data in just over 60 Black women with mTNBC showed that they can expect to see their progression-free survival (PFS) improve by 56% and their overall survival increase by a nonsignificant 36% when given SG as opposed to single-agent chemotherapy.

The research (abstract P5-16-07) was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 10.

The team says that Black women with mTNBC “derived a similar clinical benefit” from SG versus chemotherapy to other women in the study, and had a “manageable” safety profile, which was “consistent with the full trial population.”

Consequently, SG “should be considered a treatment option for Black patients with mTNBC who have received ≥ 2 prior chemotherapies,” at least one of which having been given in the metastatic setting.

Lead researcher Lisa A. Carey, MD, told this news organiztion that it is “very important” to show that the drug works in Black patients, adding: “We know that certain drugs don’t perform so well and it’s also true that people of color are particularly affected by TNBC.”

She said there were “only 62” Black patients in ASCENT, “so if you look at the entire trial and make assumptions that the drug performs the same in all the subsets, then sometimes you’re wrong.”

Dr. Carey, the Richardson and Marilyn Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor in Breast Cancer Research, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, N.C., said there is “emerging interest” in racial disparities in cancer outcomes.

“Black patients have more trouble with access to care,” she said, noting that “in trial populations, [the outcomes] generally seem similar because the patients who go onto the trials tend to be those that can participate, but you never know until you look.”

Overall, Dr. Carey said the current results suggest that, “at least from the standpoint of the therapeutic implications of this drug – which is really a pretty remarkable drug in the overall study – it behaves very similarly in this group.”

Jennifer K. Litton, MD, vice president of clinical research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said: “We have known that minority patients, especially Black patients, have a higher rate of triple negative breast cancer and aggressive biologies, and have had worse breast cancer outcomes in many published series.”

She told this news organization that, “additionally, they are often underrepresented in breast cancer clinical trials.”

Dr. Litton said “the very favorable outcomes” reported in “this important subset of patients who participated in the ASCENT trial” confirm the use of SG in patients with mTNBC.

To examine the clinical outcomes of Black patients in the ASCENT study, the team conduced a prespecified analysis of participants self-reporting Black race who had been randomized to SG or single-agent chemotherapy of physician’s choice, including those with and without brain metastases.

Of the 529 patients enrolled to ASCENT, 62 (12%) were Black, of whom 28 were assigned to SG and 34 to single agent chemotherapy. The two groups were generally well balanced, although six patients in the chemotherapy arm had known brain metastases at baseline versus none of those given SG.

After a median treatment duration of 5.3 months with SG and 1.6 months for single-agent chemotherapy, there was a significant improvement in PFS with SG, at 5.4 months versus 2.2 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.44 (P = .008).

There was also a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival with SG at 13.8 months versus 8.5 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .159).

The objective response rate was 32% with SG versus 6% in patients given chemotherapy, while the median duration of response was 9.2 months in the SG arm and not evaluable for chemotherapy.

The researchers note that these efficacy findings were “consistent” with those seen in the full ASCENT study population.

In terms of safety, the most common treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, seen in 64% of SG and 61% of chemotherapy patients, diarrhea in 64% and 13%, respectively, and fatigue, in 52% and 39%, respectively.

The most common grade ≥3 events were neutropenia, in 48% and 42% of SG and chemotherapy patients, respectively, followed by anemia, in 12% and 6%, respectively, leukopenia in 8% and 16%, respectively, and febrile neutropenia in 8% and 3%, respectively.

No treatment-related deaths occurred in either treatment arm.

Dose reduction due to treatment-emergent adverse events was recorded in 28% of patients receiving SG and 35% of those assigned to single-agent chemotherapy, and discontinuations occurred in 0% and 3%, respectively.

The study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Carey reports research funding from Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, and GSK; spouse serves on the board of Falcon Therapeutics.