Cancer

Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.

The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems

The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

• Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
• Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
• Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
• Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
• Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.

Cancer patients at high risk of complications

As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
 

Right timing and location

The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.

It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.

Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.

Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.

“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”

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

Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.

The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems

The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

• Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
• Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
• Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
• Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
• Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.

Cancer patients at high risk of complications

As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
 

Right timing and location

The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.

It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.

Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.

Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.

“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”

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

Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.

The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems

The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

• Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
• Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
• Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
• Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
• Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.

Cancer patients at high risk of complications

As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
 

Right timing and location

The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.

It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.

Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.

Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.

“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”

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

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

Breast cancer screening rates at community health centers (CHCs) in the United States declined during the pandemic, particularly among Black and uninsured individuals, based on a retrospective look at 32 sites.

Still, drops in screening were less dramatic than national declines previously reported, possibly because of the American Cancer Society–directed CHANGE program, which was simultaneously underway at the CHCs involved, reported lead author Stacey A. Fedewa, PhD, senior principal scientist at the ACS in Atlanta, and colleagues.

“This is one of the first studies to examine breast cancer screening rates during the pandemic specifically among clinics providing care to communities of color and lower income populations, a group with lower utilization of and greater barriers to [breast cancer] screening,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “This is important because these populations have longstanding barriers to accessing care, lower breast screening rates, higher breast cancer mortality rates, and are especially vulnerable to health care disruptions.”

According to a previous analysis of electronic health records by Mast and Munoz del Rio, breast cancer screening rates in the United States dropped 94% in March/April 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. Although a recent follow-up report showed a rebound in breast cancer screening, the estimated rate remains 13% below average.

The present study evaluated data from 32 out of 1,385 CHCs in the United States. All centers were involved in the ACS-run CHANGE grant program, which funded the clinics for 2 years, during which time they implemented at least three evidence-based provider and client interventions, such as patient navigation or electronic medical record enhancements. The clinics reported breast cancer screening rates on a routine basis throughout the 2-year period, beginning August 2018.

Breast cancer screening rate was defined as the percentage of women aged 50-74 years who had a screening mammogram within the past 27 months, out of a total pool of women who had a medical visit within the past year. For 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, 142,207; 142,003; and 150,630 women had a medical visit. Screening rates were compared across years in either June or July. Findings were further characterized by demographic characteristics, urban/rural status, and clinic region.

From 2018 to 2019 breast cancer screening rates rose 18%, from 45.8% to 53.9%. This increase was followed by an 8% decline during the 2019-2020 period, from 53.9% to 49.6%.

The investigators estimated the number of missed mammograms and breast cancer diagnoses for two comparative, hypothetical scenarios: first, if the rising trend from 2018 to 2019 had continued through 2020, and second, if the rate had plateaued at 53.9%.

The rising trend model suggested that 47,517 fewer mammograms than normal were conducted during 2019-2020, resulting in 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses, of which 166 were invasive and 76 were ductal carcinoma in situ. The plateau model suggested that 6,477 fewer mammograms were conducted, leading to 33 missed diagnoses.

Compared with the 8% decline in screening overall, the rate among Black patients dropped 12%, while rates at clinics with a lower proportion of uninsured patients dropped an average of 15%. In contrast, clinics in the South did not have a significant reduction in screening, “possibly reflecting lower baseline rates or impact of stay-at-home orders,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Fedewa and colleagues also noted that their findings were less dramatic than those reported by Mast and Munoz del Rio. They suggested that the CHANGE program may have softened the blow dealt by the pandemic.

“The CHANGE program–funded interventions – that were established before and continued through 2020 – may have mitigated the pandemic’s effects on breast cancer screening services among the 32 CHCs that were studied,” they wrote. “Further investigation of breast cancer screening rates among additional CHCs will further inform where targeted interventions (e.g., client reminders, education on return to screening) are most needed.”

According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, “Progress seen with the CHANGE program should be duplicated in other clinical venues based on improvements seen in numbers of mammograms and breast cancers detected.”

Still, Dr. Sutton noted that the racial/ethnic disparities remain cause for concern.

“This study has implications for persons served at CHCs, especially if breast cancer racial/ethnic disparities are unintentionally widened during this pandemic,” Dr. Sutton said in a written comment. “Policy-level changes that decrease BCSR [breast cancer screen rate] gaps for women are warranted.”

Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, a medical oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, suggested that the effects of the pandemic may have been even more pronounced among medically underserved patients in whom interventions to increase screening were not being conducted, as they were through the CHANGE program.

“One must wonder to what degree these interventions reduced the decline in screening mammography rates observed during the pandemic and to what degree could disparities in screening be magnified in community health centers with less resources,” Dr. Velázquez said in a written comment. “Therefore, understanding barriers to breast cancer screening among our specific health care systems is key to guide resource allocation and the development of evidence-based multilevel interventions that can address these barriers, and ultimately increase screening rates.”

Dr. Velázquez also noted that the study by Dr. Fedewa and colleagues may have missed drops in screening among vulnerable populations that occurred later in the pandemic and in geographic hotspots. In a recent JAMA Network Open study, Dr. Velázquez reported a 41% drop in breast cancer screening at a safety-net hospital in San Francisco during the first stay-at-home order, which lasted from Feb. 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020.

The Breast Health Equity CHANGE grant was funded by the National Football League in partnership with the American Cancer Society. The investigators reported employment by the American Cancer Society. Dr. Wehling and Dr. Wysocki disclosed grants from Pfizer unrelated to this research. Dr. Sutton and Dr. Velázquez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening rates at community health centers (CHCs) in the United States declined during the pandemic, particularly among Black and uninsured individuals, based on a retrospective look at 32 sites.

Still, drops in screening were less dramatic than national declines previously reported, possibly because of the American Cancer Society–directed CHANGE program, which was simultaneously underway at the CHCs involved, reported lead author Stacey A. Fedewa, PhD, senior principal scientist at the ACS in Atlanta, and colleagues.

“This is one of the first studies to examine breast cancer screening rates during the pandemic specifically among clinics providing care to communities of color and lower income populations, a group with lower utilization of and greater barriers to [breast cancer] screening,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “This is important because these populations have longstanding barriers to accessing care, lower breast screening rates, higher breast cancer mortality rates, and are especially vulnerable to health care disruptions.”

According to a previous analysis of electronic health records by Mast and Munoz del Rio, breast cancer screening rates in the United States dropped 94% in March/April 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. Although a recent follow-up report showed a rebound in breast cancer screening, the estimated rate remains 13% below average.

The present study evaluated data from 32 out of 1,385 CHCs in the United States. All centers were involved in the ACS-run CHANGE grant program, which funded the clinics for 2 years, during which time they implemented at least three evidence-based provider and client interventions, such as patient navigation or electronic medical record enhancements. The clinics reported breast cancer screening rates on a routine basis throughout the 2-year period, beginning August 2018.

Breast cancer screening rate was defined as the percentage of women aged 50-74 years who had a screening mammogram within the past 27 months, out of a total pool of women who had a medical visit within the past year. For 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, 142,207; 142,003; and 150,630 women had a medical visit. Screening rates were compared across years in either June or July. Findings were further characterized by demographic characteristics, urban/rural status, and clinic region.

From 2018 to 2019 breast cancer screening rates rose 18%, from 45.8% to 53.9%. This increase was followed by an 8% decline during the 2019-2020 period, from 53.9% to 49.6%.

The investigators estimated the number of missed mammograms and breast cancer diagnoses for two comparative, hypothetical scenarios: first, if the rising trend from 2018 to 2019 had continued through 2020, and second, if the rate had plateaued at 53.9%.

The rising trend model suggested that 47,517 fewer mammograms than normal were conducted during 2019-2020, resulting in 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses, of which 166 were invasive and 76 were ductal carcinoma in situ. The plateau model suggested that 6,477 fewer mammograms were conducted, leading to 33 missed diagnoses.

Compared with the 8% decline in screening overall, the rate among Black patients dropped 12%, while rates at clinics with a lower proportion of uninsured patients dropped an average of 15%. In contrast, clinics in the South did not have a significant reduction in screening, “possibly reflecting lower baseline rates or impact of stay-at-home orders,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Fedewa and colleagues also noted that their findings were less dramatic than those reported by Mast and Munoz del Rio. They suggested that the CHANGE program may have softened the blow dealt by the pandemic.

“The CHANGE program–funded interventions – that were established before and continued through 2020 – may have mitigated the pandemic’s effects on breast cancer screening services among the 32 CHCs that were studied,” they wrote. “Further investigation of breast cancer screening rates among additional CHCs will further inform where targeted interventions (e.g., client reminders, education on return to screening) are most needed.”

According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, “Progress seen with the CHANGE program should be duplicated in other clinical venues based on improvements seen in numbers of mammograms and breast cancers detected.”

Still, Dr. Sutton noted that the racial/ethnic disparities remain cause for concern.

“This study has implications for persons served at CHCs, especially if breast cancer racial/ethnic disparities are unintentionally widened during this pandemic,” Dr. Sutton said in a written comment. “Policy-level changes that decrease BCSR [breast cancer screen rate] gaps for women are warranted.”

Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, a medical oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, suggested that the effects of the pandemic may have been even more pronounced among medically underserved patients in whom interventions to increase screening were not being conducted, as they were through the CHANGE program.

“One must wonder to what degree these interventions reduced the decline in screening mammography rates observed during the pandemic and to what degree could disparities in screening be magnified in community health centers with less resources,” Dr. Velázquez said in a written comment. “Therefore, understanding barriers to breast cancer screening among our specific health care systems is key to guide resource allocation and the development of evidence-based multilevel interventions that can address these barriers, and ultimately increase screening rates.”

Dr. Velázquez also noted that the study by Dr. Fedewa and colleagues may have missed drops in screening among vulnerable populations that occurred later in the pandemic and in geographic hotspots. In a recent JAMA Network Open study, Dr. Velázquez reported a 41% drop in breast cancer screening at a safety-net hospital in San Francisco during the first stay-at-home order, which lasted from Feb. 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020.

The Breast Health Equity CHANGE grant was funded by the National Football League in partnership with the American Cancer Society. The investigators reported employment by the American Cancer Society. Dr. Wehling and Dr. Wysocki disclosed grants from Pfizer unrelated to this research. Dr. Sutton and Dr. Velázquez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening rates at community health centers (CHCs) in the United States declined during the pandemic, particularly among Black and uninsured individuals, based on a retrospective look at 32 sites.

Still, drops in screening were less dramatic than national declines previously reported, possibly because of the American Cancer Society–directed CHANGE program, which was simultaneously underway at the CHCs involved, reported lead author Stacey A. Fedewa, PhD, senior principal scientist at the ACS in Atlanta, and colleagues.

“This is one of the first studies to examine breast cancer screening rates during the pandemic specifically among clinics providing care to communities of color and lower income populations, a group with lower utilization of and greater barriers to [breast cancer] screening,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “This is important because these populations have longstanding barriers to accessing care, lower breast screening rates, higher breast cancer mortality rates, and are especially vulnerable to health care disruptions.”

According to a previous analysis of electronic health records by Mast and Munoz del Rio, breast cancer screening rates in the United States dropped 94% in March/April 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. Although a recent follow-up report showed a rebound in breast cancer screening, the estimated rate remains 13% below average.

The present study evaluated data from 32 out of 1,385 CHCs in the United States. All centers were involved in the ACS-run CHANGE grant program, which funded the clinics for 2 years, during which time they implemented at least three evidence-based provider and client interventions, such as patient navigation or electronic medical record enhancements. The clinics reported breast cancer screening rates on a routine basis throughout the 2-year period, beginning August 2018.

Breast cancer screening rate was defined as the percentage of women aged 50-74 years who had a screening mammogram within the past 27 months, out of a total pool of women who had a medical visit within the past year. For 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, 142,207; 142,003; and 150,630 women had a medical visit. Screening rates were compared across years in either June or July. Findings were further characterized by demographic characteristics, urban/rural status, and clinic region.

From 2018 to 2019 breast cancer screening rates rose 18%, from 45.8% to 53.9%. This increase was followed by an 8% decline during the 2019-2020 period, from 53.9% to 49.6%.

The investigators estimated the number of missed mammograms and breast cancer diagnoses for two comparative, hypothetical scenarios: first, if the rising trend from 2018 to 2019 had continued through 2020, and second, if the rate had plateaued at 53.9%.

The rising trend model suggested that 47,517 fewer mammograms than normal were conducted during 2019-2020, resulting in 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses, of which 166 were invasive and 76 were ductal carcinoma in situ. The plateau model suggested that 6,477 fewer mammograms were conducted, leading to 33 missed diagnoses.

Compared with the 8% decline in screening overall, the rate among Black patients dropped 12%, while rates at clinics with a lower proportion of uninsured patients dropped an average of 15%. In contrast, clinics in the South did not have a significant reduction in screening, “possibly reflecting lower baseline rates or impact of stay-at-home orders,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Fedewa and colleagues also noted that their findings were less dramatic than those reported by Mast and Munoz del Rio. They suggested that the CHANGE program may have softened the blow dealt by the pandemic.

“The CHANGE program–funded interventions – that were established before and continued through 2020 – may have mitigated the pandemic’s effects on breast cancer screening services among the 32 CHCs that were studied,” they wrote. “Further investigation of breast cancer screening rates among additional CHCs will further inform where targeted interventions (e.g., client reminders, education on return to screening) are most needed.”

According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, “Progress seen with the CHANGE program should be duplicated in other clinical venues based on improvements seen in numbers of mammograms and breast cancers detected.”

Still, Dr. Sutton noted that the racial/ethnic disparities remain cause for concern.

“This study has implications for persons served at CHCs, especially if breast cancer racial/ethnic disparities are unintentionally widened during this pandemic,” Dr. Sutton said in a written comment. “Policy-level changes that decrease BCSR [breast cancer screen rate] gaps for women are warranted.”

Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, a medical oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, suggested that the effects of the pandemic may have been even more pronounced among medically underserved patients in whom interventions to increase screening were not being conducted, as they were through the CHANGE program.

“One must wonder to what degree these interventions reduced the decline in screening mammography rates observed during the pandemic and to what degree could disparities in screening be magnified in community health centers with less resources,” Dr. Velázquez said in a written comment. “Therefore, understanding barriers to breast cancer screening among our specific health care systems is key to guide resource allocation and the development of evidence-based multilevel interventions that can address these barriers, and ultimately increase screening rates.”

Dr. Velázquez also noted that the study by Dr. Fedewa and colleagues may have missed drops in screening among vulnerable populations that occurred later in the pandemic and in geographic hotspots. In a recent JAMA Network Open study, Dr. Velázquez reported a 41% drop in breast cancer screening at a safety-net hospital in San Francisco during the first stay-at-home order, which lasted from Feb. 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020.

The Breast Health Equity CHANGE grant was funded by the National Football League in partnership with the American Cancer Society. The investigators reported employment by the American Cancer Society. Dr. Wehling and Dr. Wysocki disclosed grants from Pfizer unrelated to this research. Dr. Sutton and Dr. Velázquez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Nearly 50,000 veterans are diagnosed with cancer within the Veterans Health Administration annually with prostate cancer (PC) being the most frequently diagnosed, accounting for 29% of all cancers diagnosed.¹ The treatment of PC depends on the stage and risk group at presentation and patient preference. Men with early stage, localized PC can be managed with prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or active surveillance.²

Within the Veterans Health Administration, more patients are treated with radiation therapy than with radical prostatectomy.³ This is in contrast to the civil health system, where more patients are treated with radical prostatectomy than with radiation therapy.^4,5 Radiation therapy for PC can be given externally with external beam radiation therapy or internally with brachytherapy (BT). BT is categorized by the rate at which the radiation dose is delivered and generally grouped as low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR). LDRBT consists of permanently implanting radioactive seeds, which slowly deliver a radiation dose over an extended period. HDRBT consists of implanting catheters that allow delivery of a radioactive source to be placed temporarily in the prostate and removed after treatment. The utilization of HDRBT has become more common as treatment has evolved to consist of fewer, larger fractions in a shorter time, making it a convenient treatment option for men with PC.⁶ The veteran population has singular medical challenges. These patients differ from the general population and are often underrepresented in medical research and published studies.⁷ There are no studies exploring the treatment-associated toxicities from HDRBT treatment for PC specifically in the veteran population. The objective of this study is to report our findings regarding the veteran-reported and physician-graded toxicities associated with HDRBT as monotherapy in veterans treated through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for PC.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained, institutional review board-approved database of patients treated with HDRBT for PC. Veterans were seen in consultation at Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (EHJVAH) in Hines, Illinois. This is the only VA hospital in Illinois that offers radiation therapy, so it acted as a tertiary center, receiving referrals from other, neighboring VA hospitals. If the veteran was deemed a good BT candidate and elected to proceed with HDRBT, HDR treatment was performed at a partnering academic institution equipped to provide HDRBT (Loyola University Medical Center).

We selected patients with National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDRBT as monotherapy using 13.5 Gy x 2 fractions delivered over 2 implants that were 1 to 2 weeks apart. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were excluded from this study. No patients received supplemental external beam radiation. Men with unfavorable intermediate risk PC were offered ADT and BT in accordance with NCCN guidelines. However, patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk PC who declined ADT or who were deemed poor ADT candidates due to comorbidities were treated with HDR as monotherapy and included in this study.⁸

HDR Treatment

Our HDRBT implant procedure and treatment planning details have been previously described.⁹ In brief, patients were implanted with between 17 and 22 catheters based on gland size under transrectal ultrasound guidance. After implantation, computed tomography and, when possible, magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate were obtained and registered for target delineation. The prostate was segmented, and an asymmetric planning target volume of 0 to 5 mm was created and extended to encompass the proximal seminal vesicles. The second fraction was given 1 to 2 weeks after initial treatment, based on patient, physician, and operating room availability.

Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment

Veteran-reported genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual health-related quality of life (hrQOL) were assessed using the validated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) instruments.^10,11 Baseline veteran-reported hrQOL scores in the GU, GI, and sexual domains were obtained prior to each veteran’s first HDR treatment. Veteran-reported hrQOL scores were assessed at each of the patient’s follow-up appointments. Physician-graded toxicity was assessed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03 criteria.¹² Physician-graded toxicity was assessed at each follow-up visit and reported as the highest grade reported during any follow-up examination.

Follow-up appointments typically occurred at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and subsequently every 6 months after the second HDR treatment. Follow-up appointments were conducted in the radiation oncology department at EHJVAH.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences

To evaluate the veteran-reported hrQOL, we characterized statistically significant differences in IPSS or EPIC-26 scores over time as compared with baseline values as clinically important or not clinically important through the use of reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) assessments.^13-15 For the IPSS, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 3.0 points represented a clinically meaningful change in urinary function.¹⁴ For the EPIC-26 scores, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 6 points for urinary incontinence score, ≥ 5 points for urinary obstruction score, ≥ 4 points for bowel score, and ≥ 10 points for sexual score to represent an MCID.¹⁵

Statistical Analysis

Changes in veteran-reported hrQOL over time were compared using mixed linear effects models, with the time since the last BT implant serving as the fixed variable. Effects were deemed statistically significant if P < .05. If a statistically significant difference from baseline was found at any time point, additional evaluation was done to see if the numerical difference in the assessment led to an MCID as described above. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 was used for data analysis.

Results

Seventy-four veterans were included in the study. The median follow-up was 18 months (range 1-43). The demographic and oncologic specifics of the treated veterans are outlined in Table 1.

There was a significant increase in IPSS (P < .001) with reciprocal decline in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence (P = .008) and EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores (P = .001) from baseline over time (Table 2 and Figure 1). At the 18-month follow-up assessment, there was no longer a significant difference in the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction score from baseline (88.7 vs 84.0, P = .31). The increases in IPSS at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month assessments met the criteria for MCID. The decrease in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month assessments were found to be an MCID, as were the decrease in EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessments.

Discussion

We performed a retrospective study of veterans with low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDR prostate BT as monotherapy. We found that veterans experienced immediate declines in GU, GI, and sexual hrQOL after treatment. However, each trended toward a return to baseline over time, with the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction and the EPIC-26 bowel scores showing no difference from the baseline value within 18 months and 12 months, respectively. The physician-reported toxicities were low, with only 1 incidence of grade 3 GU toxicity, no grade 3 GI or sexual toxicities, and no grade 4 or 5 toxicity. This suggests that HDRBT is a well-tolerated and safe, definitive treatment for veterans with localized PC.

In a series similar to ours, Gaudet and colleagues reported on their single institutional results of treating 30 low- or intermediate-risk PC patients with HDRBT as monotherapy.¹⁶ Patients included in their study were civilians from the general population, treated in a similar fashion to the veterans treated in our study. Each patient received 27 Gy in 2 fractions given over 2 implants. The authors collected patient-reported hrQOL results using the IPSS and EPIC questionnaires and found that 57% of patients treated experienced moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms at the 1-month assessment after implantation, with a rapid recovery toward baseline over time. In contrast, GI symptoms did not change from baseline, while sexual symptoms worsened after implantation and failed to return to baseline.

Limitations

To the authors’ knowledge, there are no other studies exploring HDR prostate BT toxicity in a veteran-specific population, and our study is novel in addressing this question. One limitation of the study is the relatively short median follow-up time of 18 months. With this limitation, our data were not yet sufficiently mature to perform biochemical control or overall survival analyses. The next step in our study is to calculate these clinical endpoints from our data after longer follow-up.

An additional limitation to our study is the single institutional nature of the design. While veterans from neighboring VA hospitals were included in the study by way of referral and treatment at our center, the only VA hospital in the state to provide radiation therapy, our patient population remains limited. Further multi-institutional and prospective data are needed to validate our findings.

Conclusions

HDR prostate BT as monotherapy is feasible with a favorable veteran-reported hrQOL and physician-graded toxicity profile. Veterans should be educated about this treatment modality when considering the optimal treatment for their localized prostate cancer.

Nearly 50,000 veterans are diagnosed with cancer within the Veterans Health Administration annually with prostate cancer (PC) being the most frequently diagnosed, accounting for 29% of all cancers diagnosed.¹ The treatment of PC depends on the stage and risk group at presentation and patient preference. Men with early stage, localized PC can be managed with prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or active surveillance.²

Within the Veterans Health Administration, more patients are treated with radiation therapy than with radical prostatectomy.³ This is in contrast to the civil health system, where more patients are treated with radical prostatectomy than with radiation therapy.^4,5 Radiation therapy for PC can be given externally with external beam radiation therapy or internally with brachytherapy (BT). BT is categorized by the rate at which the radiation dose is delivered and generally grouped as low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR). LDRBT consists of permanently implanting radioactive seeds, which slowly deliver a radiation dose over an extended period. HDRBT consists of implanting catheters that allow delivery of a radioactive source to be placed temporarily in the prostate and removed after treatment. The utilization of HDRBT has become more common as treatment has evolved to consist of fewer, larger fractions in a shorter time, making it a convenient treatment option for men with PC.⁶ The veteran population has singular medical challenges. These patients differ from the general population and are often underrepresented in medical research and published studies.⁷ There are no studies exploring the treatment-associated toxicities from HDRBT treatment for PC specifically in the veteran population. The objective of this study is to report our findings regarding the veteran-reported and physician-graded toxicities associated with HDRBT as monotherapy in veterans treated through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for PC.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained, institutional review board-approved database of patients treated with HDRBT for PC. Veterans were seen in consultation at Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (EHJVAH) in Hines, Illinois. This is the only VA hospital in Illinois that offers radiation therapy, so it acted as a tertiary center, receiving referrals from other, neighboring VA hospitals. If the veteran was deemed a good BT candidate and elected to proceed with HDRBT, HDR treatment was performed at a partnering academic institution equipped to provide HDRBT (Loyola University Medical Center).

We selected patients with National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDRBT as monotherapy using 13.5 Gy x 2 fractions delivered over 2 implants that were 1 to 2 weeks apart. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were excluded from this study. No patients received supplemental external beam radiation. Men with unfavorable intermediate risk PC were offered ADT and BT in accordance with NCCN guidelines. However, patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk PC who declined ADT or who were deemed poor ADT candidates due to comorbidities were treated with HDR as monotherapy and included in this study.⁸

HDR Treatment

Our HDRBT implant procedure and treatment planning details have been previously described.⁹ In brief, patients were implanted with between 17 and 22 catheters based on gland size under transrectal ultrasound guidance. After implantation, computed tomography and, when possible, magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate were obtained and registered for target delineation. The prostate was segmented, and an asymmetric planning target volume of 0 to 5 mm was created and extended to encompass the proximal seminal vesicles. The second fraction was given 1 to 2 weeks after initial treatment, based on patient, physician, and operating room availability.

Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment

Veteran-reported genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual health-related quality of life (hrQOL) were assessed using the validated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) instruments.^10,11 Baseline veteran-reported hrQOL scores in the GU, GI, and sexual domains were obtained prior to each veteran’s first HDR treatment. Veteran-reported hrQOL scores were assessed at each of the patient’s follow-up appointments. Physician-graded toxicity was assessed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03 criteria.¹² Physician-graded toxicity was assessed at each follow-up visit and reported as the highest grade reported during any follow-up examination.

Follow-up appointments typically occurred at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and subsequently every 6 months after the second HDR treatment. Follow-up appointments were conducted in the radiation oncology department at EHJVAH.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences

To evaluate the veteran-reported hrQOL, we characterized statistically significant differences in IPSS or EPIC-26 scores over time as compared with baseline values as clinically important or not clinically important through the use of reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) assessments.^13-15 For the IPSS, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 3.0 points represented a clinically meaningful change in urinary function.¹⁴ For the EPIC-26 scores, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 6 points for urinary incontinence score, ≥ 5 points for urinary obstruction score, ≥ 4 points for bowel score, and ≥ 10 points for sexual score to represent an MCID.¹⁵

Statistical Analysis

Changes in veteran-reported hrQOL over time were compared using mixed linear effects models, with the time since the last BT implant serving as the fixed variable. Effects were deemed statistically significant if P < .05. If a statistically significant difference from baseline was found at any time point, additional evaluation was done to see if the numerical difference in the assessment led to an MCID as described above. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 was used for data analysis.

Results

Seventy-four veterans were included in the study. The median follow-up was 18 months (range 1-43). The demographic and oncologic specifics of the treated veterans are outlined in Table 1.

There was a significant increase in IPSS (P < .001) with reciprocal decline in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence (P = .008) and EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores (P = .001) from baseline over time (Table 2 and Figure 1). At the 18-month follow-up assessment, there was no longer a significant difference in the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction score from baseline (88.7 vs 84.0, P = .31). The increases in IPSS at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month assessments met the criteria for MCID. The decrease in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month assessments were found to be an MCID, as were the decrease in EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessments.

Discussion

We performed a retrospective study of veterans with low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDR prostate BT as monotherapy. We found that veterans experienced immediate declines in GU, GI, and sexual hrQOL after treatment. However, each trended toward a return to baseline over time, with the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction and the EPIC-26 bowel scores showing no difference from the baseline value within 18 months and 12 months, respectively. The physician-reported toxicities were low, with only 1 incidence of grade 3 GU toxicity, no grade 3 GI or sexual toxicities, and no grade 4 or 5 toxicity. This suggests that HDRBT is a well-tolerated and safe, definitive treatment for veterans with localized PC.

In a series similar to ours, Gaudet and colleagues reported on their single institutional results of treating 30 low- or intermediate-risk PC patients with HDRBT as monotherapy.¹⁶ Patients included in their study were civilians from the general population, treated in a similar fashion to the veterans treated in our study. Each patient received 27 Gy in 2 fractions given over 2 implants. The authors collected patient-reported hrQOL results using the IPSS and EPIC questionnaires and found that 57% of patients treated experienced moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms at the 1-month assessment after implantation, with a rapid recovery toward baseline over time. In contrast, GI symptoms did not change from baseline, while sexual symptoms worsened after implantation and failed to return to baseline.

Limitations

To the authors’ knowledge, there are no other studies exploring HDR prostate BT toxicity in a veteran-specific population, and our study is novel in addressing this question. One limitation of the study is the relatively short median follow-up time of 18 months. With this limitation, our data were not yet sufficiently mature to perform biochemical control or overall survival analyses. The next step in our study is to calculate these clinical endpoints from our data after longer follow-up.

An additional limitation to our study is the single institutional nature of the design. While veterans from neighboring VA hospitals were included in the study by way of referral and treatment at our center, the only VA hospital in the state to provide radiation therapy, our patient population remains limited. Further multi-institutional and prospective data are needed to validate our findings.

Conclusions

HDR prostate BT as monotherapy is feasible with a favorable veteran-reported hrQOL and physician-graded toxicity profile. Veterans should be educated about this treatment modality when considering the optimal treatment for their localized prostate cancer.

Nearly 50,000 veterans are diagnosed with cancer within the Veterans Health Administration annually with prostate cancer (PC) being the most frequently diagnosed, accounting for 29% of all cancers diagnosed.¹ The treatment of PC depends on the stage and risk group at presentation and patient preference. Men with early stage, localized PC can be managed with prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or active surveillance.²

Within the Veterans Health Administration, more patients are treated with radiation therapy than with radical prostatectomy.³ This is in contrast to the civil health system, where more patients are treated with radical prostatectomy than with radiation therapy.^4,5 Radiation therapy for PC can be given externally with external beam radiation therapy or internally with brachytherapy (BT). BT is categorized by the rate at which the radiation dose is delivered and generally grouped as low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR). LDRBT consists of permanently implanting radioactive seeds, which slowly deliver a radiation dose over an extended period. HDRBT consists of implanting catheters that allow delivery of a radioactive source to be placed temporarily in the prostate and removed after treatment. The utilization of HDRBT has become more common as treatment has evolved to consist of fewer, larger fractions in a shorter time, making it a convenient treatment option for men with PC.⁶ The veteran population has singular medical challenges. These patients differ from the general population and are often underrepresented in medical research and published studies.⁷ There are no studies exploring the treatment-associated toxicities from HDRBT treatment for PC specifically in the veteran population. The objective of this study is to report our findings regarding the veteran-reported and physician-graded toxicities associated with HDRBT as monotherapy in veterans treated through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for PC.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained, institutional review board-approved database of patients treated with HDRBT for PC. Veterans were seen in consultation at Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (EHJVAH) in Hines, Illinois. This is the only VA hospital in Illinois that offers radiation therapy, so it acted as a tertiary center, receiving referrals from other, neighboring VA hospitals. If the veteran was deemed a good BT candidate and elected to proceed with HDRBT, HDR treatment was performed at a partnering academic institution equipped to provide HDRBT (Loyola University Medical Center).

We selected patients with National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDRBT as monotherapy using 13.5 Gy x 2 fractions delivered over 2 implants that were 1 to 2 weeks apart. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were excluded from this study. No patients received supplemental external beam radiation. Men with unfavorable intermediate risk PC were offered ADT and BT in accordance with NCCN guidelines. However, patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk PC who declined ADT or who were deemed poor ADT candidates due to comorbidities were treated with HDR as monotherapy and included in this study.⁸

HDR Treatment

Our HDRBT implant procedure and treatment planning details have been previously described.⁹ In brief, patients were implanted with between 17 and 22 catheters based on gland size under transrectal ultrasound guidance. After implantation, computed tomography and, when possible, magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate were obtained and registered for target delineation. The prostate was segmented, and an asymmetric planning target volume of 0 to 5 mm was created and extended to encompass the proximal seminal vesicles. The second fraction was given 1 to 2 weeks after initial treatment, based on patient, physician, and operating room availability.

Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment

Veteran-reported genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual health-related quality of life (hrQOL) were assessed using the validated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) instruments.^10,11 Baseline veteran-reported hrQOL scores in the GU, GI, and sexual domains were obtained prior to each veteran’s first HDR treatment. Veteran-reported hrQOL scores were assessed at each of the patient’s follow-up appointments. Physician-graded toxicity was assessed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03 criteria.¹² Physician-graded toxicity was assessed at each follow-up visit and reported as the highest grade reported during any follow-up examination.

Follow-up appointments typically occurred at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and subsequently every 6 months after the second HDR treatment. Follow-up appointments were conducted in the radiation oncology department at EHJVAH.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences

To evaluate the veteran-reported hrQOL, we characterized statistically significant differences in IPSS or EPIC-26 scores over time as compared with baseline values as clinically important or not clinically important through the use of reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) assessments.^13-15 For the IPSS, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 3.0 points represented a clinically meaningful change in urinary function.¹⁴ For the EPIC-26 scores, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 6 points for urinary incontinence score, ≥ 5 points for urinary obstruction score, ≥ 4 points for bowel score, and ≥ 10 points for sexual score to represent an MCID.¹⁵

Statistical Analysis

Changes in veteran-reported hrQOL over time were compared using mixed linear effects models, with the time since the last BT implant serving as the fixed variable. Effects were deemed statistically significant if P < .05. If a statistically significant difference from baseline was found at any time point, additional evaluation was done to see if the numerical difference in the assessment led to an MCID as described above. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 was used for data analysis.

Results

Seventy-four veterans were included in the study. The median follow-up was 18 months (range 1-43). The demographic and oncologic specifics of the treated veterans are outlined in Table 1.

There was a significant increase in IPSS (P < .001) with reciprocal decline in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence (P = .008) and EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores (P = .001) from baseline over time (Table 2 and Figure 1). At the 18-month follow-up assessment, there was no longer a significant difference in the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction score from baseline (88.7 vs 84.0, P = .31). The increases in IPSS at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month assessments met the criteria for MCID. The decrease in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month assessments were found to be an MCID, as were the decrease in EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessments.

Discussion

We performed a retrospective study of veterans with low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDR prostate BT as monotherapy. We found that veterans experienced immediate declines in GU, GI, and sexual hrQOL after treatment. However, each trended toward a return to baseline over time, with the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction and the EPIC-26 bowel scores showing no difference from the baseline value within 18 months and 12 months, respectively. The physician-reported toxicities were low, with only 1 incidence of grade 3 GU toxicity, no grade 3 GI or sexual toxicities, and no grade 4 or 5 toxicity. This suggests that HDRBT is a well-tolerated and safe, definitive treatment for veterans with localized PC.

In a series similar to ours, Gaudet and colleagues reported on their single institutional results of treating 30 low- or intermediate-risk PC patients with HDRBT as monotherapy.¹⁶ Patients included in their study were civilians from the general population, treated in a similar fashion to the veterans treated in our study. Each patient received 27 Gy in 2 fractions given over 2 implants. The authors collected patient-reported hrQOL results using the IPSS and EPIC questionnaires and found that 57% of patients treated experienced moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms at the 1-month assessment after implantation, with a rapid recovery toward baseline over time. In contrast, GI symptoms did not change from baseline, while sexual symptoms worsened after implantation and failed to return to baseline.

Limitations

To the authors’ knowledge, there are no other studies exploring HDR prostate BT toxicity in a veteran-specific population, and our study is novel in addressing this question. One limitation of the study is the relatively short median follow-up time of 18 months. With this limitation, our data were not yet sufficiently mature to perform biochemical control or overall survival analyses. The next step in our study is to calculate these clinical endpoints from our data after longer follow-up.

An additional limitation to our study is the single institutional nature of the design. While veterans from neighboring VA hospitals were included in the study by way of referral and treatment at our center, the only VA hospital in the state to provide radiation therapy, our patient population remains limited. Further multi-institutional and prospective data are needed to validate our findings.

Conclusions

HDR prostate BT as monotherapy is feasible with a favorable veteran-reported hrQOL and physician-graded toxicity profile. Veterans should be educated about this treatment modality when considering the optimal treatment for their localized prostate cancer.

Ultrasonography screening intervals of less than 6-12 months were associated with early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as increased life expectancy and quality of life, according to data from a nationwide comparative effectiveness study of nearly 60,000 patients in Taiwan.

Many international societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver, and the European Association for the Study of the Liver, recommend abdominal ultrasonography screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with or without alpha-fetoprotein every 6 months for patients at increased risk for HCC, wrote Shih-Chiang Kuo, MD, of National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, and colleagues.

However, some studies do not support this recommendation, and data suggest that “adherence to regular screenings by high-risk patients has been inadequate, leading to reduced overall benefits of ultrasonography screening in real-world practice,” and the impact of screening schedules on quality of life has not been assessed, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified adults with newly diagnosed HCC from 2002 through 2015 using data from the Taiwan National Cancer Registry. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging information was available for 42,081 men and 17,113 women; the average age was 62 years for men and 69 years for women. The patients were divided into five cohorts based on the time between their last ultrasonography screening and an index date of 90 days before their HCC diagnosis. These groups were 6 months (0-6 months), 12 months (7-12 months), 24 months (13-24 months), 36 months (25-36 months), and longer than 36 months.

“For both sexes, the proportions of patients with HCC classified as being in earlier stages (stage 0 and A) were higher in subcohorts with shorter screening intervals since the most recent ultrasonography,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also assessed quality of life measures using the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions in 807 men (3,370 repeated assessments) and 252 women (1,044 repeated assessments). Among men, the loss of quality of life expectancy in terms of quality of life years (QALYs) was 10.0, 11.1, 12.1, 13.1, and 14.6 for screening intervals of 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, and beyond 36 months, respectively. The corresponding QALYs for women at the same screening intervals were 9.0, 9.7, 10.3, 10.7, and 11.4, respectively.

In a subgroup analysis according to underlying liver disease, patients with underlying hepatitis B virus infection or cirrhosis showed the greatest benefits from shorter screening intervals. For those with hepatitis B virus infection, abdominal ultrasonography screening 6 months or less prior to diagnosis of HCC was associated with an additional 4.8 QALYs for men and 2.8 QALYs for women, compared with screening longer than 36 months prior to diagnosis. The corresponding savings in QALY for men and women with underlying cirrhosis was 4.8 QALYs and 2.4 QALYs. Patients with no underlying liver disease also benefited from shorter intervals, with potential savings of 3.2 QALYs for men and 1.6 QALYs for women in the 6-month screening groups, compared with the longer than 36 months groups.

However, less than half of the men overall underwent screening withing 6 months or 12 months before diagnosis (31.4% and 39.3%, respectively); for women, 42.2% received screening within 6 months of diagnosis and 51.9% received screening within 12 months.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only the last screening before diagnosis, which allows the possibility that patients in the 6- or 12-month groups did not have regular screening, the researchers noted. In addition, the lack of data on quality of life for women with BCLC stage D might have caused an underestimation of quality of life loss, they said. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a national database and long follow-up period, they said.

The results support intervals of 6-12 months or less for regular ultrasonography screening as a way to improve early detection of HCC, “and may save lives and improve utility for patients with HCC from a lifetime perspective,” the researchers emphasized. “Because people with underlying risk factors (including hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus infection, cirrhosis, and alcoholic liver disease) showed only slightly more frequent ultrasonography screening than those without underlying risk factors, we recommend improving this clinical practice,” they concluded.
 

Impact of identifying risk

“This study is important because HCC remains the third leading cause of cancer deaths, and the 5-year survival rate is low,” said Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview.

Dr. Sakuraba said that he was not surprised by any of the study findings. “Earlier diagnosis of cancer is often associated with improved outcome in many cancers,” he noted.

However, “Overutilization of resources may lead to increased health care costs, so correct identification of high-risk populations is needed,” Dr. Sakuraba said.

Additional research is warranted in several areas in order to make an impact on clinical practice, Dr. Sakuraba said, notably, “confirmation in other countries and ethnicities where the incidence of viral hepatitis varies.” Comparison to other tests, such as tumor markers, CT, and MRI, is needed as well, he concluded.

The study was supported by the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Ultrasonography screening intervals of less than 6-12 months were associated with early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as increased life expectancy and quality of life, according to data from a nationwide comparative effectiveness study of nearly 60,000 patients in Taiwan.

Many international societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver, and the European Association for the Study of the Liver, recommend abdominal ultrasonography screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with or without alpha-fetoprotein every 6 months for patients at increased risk for HCC, wrote Shih-Chiang Kuo, MD, of National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, and colleagues.

However, some studies do not support this recommendation, and data suggest that “adherence to regular screenings by high-risk patients has been inadequate, leading to reduced overall benefits of ultrasonography screening in real-world practice,” and the impact of screening schedules on quality of life has not been assessed, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified adults with newly diagnosed HCC from 2002 through 2015 using data from the Taiwan National Cancer Registry. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging information was available for 42,081 men and 17,113 women; the average age was 62 years for men and 69 years for women. The patients were divided into five cohorts based on the time between their last ultrasonography screening and an index date of 90 days before their HCC diagnosis. These groups were 6 months (0-6 months), 12 months (7-12 months), 24 months (13-24 months), 36 months (25-36 months), and longer than 36 months.

“For both sexes, the proportions of patients with HCC classified as being in earlier stages (stage 0 and A) were higher in subcohorts with shorter screening intervals since the most recent ultrasonography,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also assessed quality of life measures using the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions in 807 men (3,370 repeated assessments) and 252 women (1,044 repeated assessments). Among men, the loss of quality of life expectancy in terms of quality of life years (QALYs) was 10.0, 11.1, 12.1, 13.1, and 14.6 for screening intervals of 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, and beyond 36 months, respectively. The corresponding QALYs for women at the same screening intervals were 9.0, 9.7, 10.3, 10.7, and 11.4, respectively.

In a subgroup analysis according to underlying liver disease, patients with underlying hepatitis B virus infection or cirrhosis showed the greatest benefits from shorter screening intervals. For those with hepatitis B virus infection, abdominal ultrasonography screening 6 months or less prior to diagnosis of HCC was associated with an additional 4.8 QALYs for men and 2.8 QALYs for women, compared with screening longer than 36 months prior to diagnosis. The corresponding savings in QALY for men and women with underlying cirrhosis was 4.8 QALYs and 2.4 QALYs. Patients with no underlying liver disease also benefited from shorter intervals, with potential savings of 3.2 QALYs for men and 1.6 QALYs for women in the 6-month screening groups, compared with the longer than 36 months groups.

However, less than half of the men overall underwent screening withing 6 months or 12 months before diagnosis (31.4% and 39.3%, respectively); for women, 42.2% received screening within 6 months of diagnosis and 51.9% received screening within 12 months.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only the last screening before diagnosis, which allows the possibility that patients in the 6- or 12-month groups did not have regular screening, the researchers noted. In addition, the lack of data on quality of life for women with BCLC stage D might have caused an underestimation of quality of life loss, they said. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a national database and long follow-up period, they said.

The results support intervals of 6-12 months or less for regular ultrasonography screening as a way to improve early detection of HCC, “and may save lives and improve utility for patients with HCC from a lifetime perspective,” the researchers emphasized. “Because people with underlying risk factors (including hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus infection, cirrhosis, and alcoholic liver disease) showed only slightly more frequent ultrasonography screening than those without underlying risk factors, we recommend improving this clinical practice,” they concluded.
 

Impact of identifying risk

“This study is important because HCC remains the third leading cause of cancer deaths, and the 5-year survival rate is low,” said Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview.

Dr. Sakuraba said that he was not surprised by any of the study findings. “Earlier diagnosis of cancer is often associated with improved outcome in many cancers,” he noted.

However, “Overutilization of resources may lead to increased health care costs, so correct identification of high-risk populations is needed,” Dr. Sakuraba said.

Additional research is warranted in several areas in order to make an impact on clinical practice, Dr. Sakuraba said, notably, “confirmation in other countries and ethnicities where the incidence of viral hepatitis varies.” Comparison to other tests, such as tumor markers, CT, and MRI, is needed as well, he concluded.

The study was supported by the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Ultrasonography screening intervals of less than 6-12 months were associated with early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as increased life expectancy and quality of life, according to data from a nationwide comparative effectiveness study of nearly 60,000 patients in Taiwan.

Many international societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver, and the European Association for the Study of the Liver, recommend abdominal ultrasonography screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with or without alpha-fetoprotein every 6 months for patients at increased risk for HCC, wrote Shih-Chiang Kuo, MD, of National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, and colleagues.

However, some studies do not support this recommendation, and data suggest that “adherence to regular screenings by high-risk patients has been inadequate, leading to reduced overall benefits of ultrasonography screening in real-world practice,” and the impact of screening schedules on quality of life has not been assessed, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified adults with newly diagnosed HCC from 2002 through 2015 using data from the Taiwan National Cancer Registry. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging information was available for 42,081 men and 17,113 women; the average age was 62 years for men and 69 years for women. The patients were divided into five cohorts based on the time between their last ultrasonography screening and an index date of 90 days before their HCC diagnosis. These groups were 6 months (0-6 months), 12 months (7-12 months), 24 months (13-24 months), 36 months (25-36 months), and longer than 36 months.

“For both sexes, the proportions of patients with HCC classified as being in earlier stages (stage 0 and A) were higher in subcohorts with shorter screening intervals since the most recent ultrasonography,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also assessed quality of life measures using the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions in 807 men (3,370 repeated assessments) and 252 women (1,044 repeated assessments). Among men, the loss of quality of life expectancy in terms of quality of life years (QALYs) was 10.0, 11.1, 12.1, 13.1, and 14.6 for screening intervals of 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, and beyond 36 months, respectively. The corresponding QALYs for women at the same screening intervals were 9.0, 9.7, 10.3, 10.7, and 11.4, respectively.

In a subgroup analysis according to underlying liver disease, patients with underlying hepatitis B virus infection or cirrhosis showed the greatest benefits from shorter screening intervals. For those with hepatitis B virus infection, abdominal ultrasonography screening 6 months or less prior to diagnosis of HCC was associated with an additional 4.8 QALYs for men and 2.8 QALYs for women, compared with screening longer than 36 months prior to diagnosis. The corresponding savings in QALY for men and women with underlying cirrhosis was 4.8 QALYs and 2.4 QALYs. Patients with no underlying liver disease also benefited from shorter intervals, with potential savings of 3.2 QALYs for men and 1.6 QALYs for women in the 6-month screening groups, compared with the longer than 36 months groups.

However, less than half of the men overall underwent screening withing 6 months or 12 months before diagnosis (31.4% and 39.3%, respectively); for women, 42.2% received screening within 6 months of diagnosis and 51.9% received screening within 12 months.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only the last screening before diagnosis, which allows the possibility that patients in the 6- or 12-month groups did not have regular screening, the researchers noted. In addition, the lack of data on quality of life for women with BCLC stage D might have caused an underestimation of quality of life loss, they said. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a national database and long follow-up period, they said.

The results support intervals of 6-12 months or less for regular ultrasonography screening as a way to improve early detection of HCC, “and may save lives and improve utility for patients with HCC from a lifetime perspective,” the researchers emphasized. “Because people with underlying risk factors (including hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus infection, cirrhosis, and alcoholic liver disease) showed only slightly more frequent ultrasonography screening than those without underlying risk factors, we recommend improving this clinical practice,” they concluded.
 

Impact of identifying risk

“This study is important because HCC remains the third leading cause of cancer deaths, and the 5-year survival rate is low,” said Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview.

Dr. Sakuraba said that he was not surprised by any of the study findings. “Earlier diagnosis of cancer is often associated with improved outcome in many cancers,” he noted.

However, “Overutilization of resources may lead to increased health care costs, so correct identification of high-risk populations is needed,” Dr. Sakuraba said.

Additional research is warranted in several areas in order to make an impact on clinical practice, Dr. Sakuraba said, notably, “confirmation in other countries and ethnicities where the incidence of viral hepatitis varies.” Comparison to other tests, such as tumor markers, CT, and MRI, is needed as well, he concluded.

The study was supported by the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

There may be a notable survival benefit for men with advanced prostate cancer and bone metastases when they are prescribed bone-protecting drugs after progressing to “castrate-resistant” status (no longer responsive to androgen deprivation therapy) and move onto first-line therapy with abiraterone acetate (Zytiga).

Results from a retrospective study show that the addition of bone resorption inhibitors (BRIs), including zoledronic acid and denosumab (Xgeva), to abiraterone plus prednisolone was associated with significantly longer overall survival (OS). The median OS was increased by nearly 9 months among recipients, compared with men who didn’t receive these drugs in this setting.

The findings were published online July 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

All men with prostate cancer should receive BRIs “as the disease reaches the castration resistance with bone metastases stage, as recommended by the international guidelines,” lead author Edoardo Francini, MD, PhD, of the University of Florence (Italy) said in a comment.

While there is no evidence that BRIs – when used alone – may improve survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with bone involvement, there has been a “suggestion” of a survival benefit with BRIs when combined with other anticancer therapies in this setting, say the authors.

So Dr. Francini and a team of international coinvestigators looked at the medical records of men with mCRPC and bone metastases treated at eight institutions in Canada, Europe, and the United States and focused on patients who received abiraterone acetate (with prednisone) because it is the most common first-line therapy in this setting.

Patients were classified by receipt versus nonreceipt of concomitant BRIs and subclassified by volume of disease (high or low volume).

There were two cohorts in the study population: 529 men (71.0%) who received abiraterone alone and 216 men (29.0%) who received abiraterone plus BRIs. The median follow-up was 23.5 months.

Patients in the BRI cohort experienced significantly longer OS compared with those in the abiraterone alone cohort (31.8 vs. 23.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; P < .001).

Notably, the OS benefit in the BRI cohort was greater for patients with high-volume versus low-volume disease (33.6 vs. 19.7 months; HR, 0.51; P < .001).

Dr. Francini hopes the new study results can effect change. “Hopefully, clinicians will be more inclined to use bone resorption inhibitors in combination with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as soon as the disease reaches the castration-resistance with bone metastases stage, as recommended by the international guidelines.” 
 

Importance of bone-targeted drugs

“This study highlights the importance of bone-targeted therapy in current practice for men with mCRPC and bone metastases,” Samuel Takvorian, MD, and Naomi Haas, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

But the study also reveals that work needs to be done to get clinicians to prescribe BRIs, they said, and that clinical pathways and behavioral “nudges” could help promote adoption.

Most (71%) of the men in this study did not get bone protective drug therapy, they pointed out, even though they were being treated at major hospital systems.

So, why aren’t more men receiving BRIs?

“I think this is less likely due to poor communication from professional societies (the guidelines are clear) and more likely due to bone health being low on the list of priorities for these patients and clinician uncertainty and/or lack of appreciation of the clinical benefit of these agents,” Dr. Takvorian said in an interview.

“When prostate cancer progresses to the castration-resistant phase, clinicians (and patients) rightfully are focused on the next cancer-directed therapy. However, this may be at the expense of supportive care, like bone agents, which often gets short shrift,” he added.

As would be expected, the men who were taking BRIs had a significantly shorter time to first skeletal-related events (SREs), compared with those who were not (32.4 vs. 42.7 months; HR, 1.27; P = .04), and the risk of a first SRE was more than double in the subgroup with low-volume disease (HR, 2.29; P < .001).

“These SREs collectively represent a clinically meaningful outcome that is often measured in clinical trials,” the editorialists observed. In the current study, SREs were comprised of pathological fractures, spinal cord compression, or the need for surgery or radiotherapy to bone.

“Up to one-half of men with mCRPC, the advanced and often fatal stage of disease, experience SREs, which are associated with considerable morbidity, decreased survival, and increased health care utilization and costs,” they wrote.
 

Costly vs. inexpensive BRI

The study found no difference in the OS benefit between the different BRIs used, that is, between that seen with zoledronic acid versus denosumab.

The editorialists suggested that this finding is important, even though it “must be considered preliminary given the limitations of a retrospective study.” These results add “to data suggesting that these agents are comparably beneficial; thus, decisions between them should focus on clinical factors, such as kidney function, patient preference, and cost.”

The two agents differ mechanistically, they added, with zoledronic acid preferentially inhibiting osteoclast proliferation and denosumab inhibiting an important factor in osteoclast maturation.

In terms of having differentiating characteristics, the editorialists say that zoledronic acid is “more often associated with acute phase reactions and required monitoring of kidney function” while “denosumab conferred a higher risk of hypocalcemia.” Rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw are comparable.

International guidelines endorse the use of either agent for the treatment of men with mCRPC. But “some argue that the marginal benefit of denosumab must be weighed against its dramatically higher cost (the annual cost of zoledronic acid is approximately $140 vs. $29,000 for denosumab),” the editorialists said.

The dramatically higher cost of denosumab versus zoledronic acid has also been noted by other oncologists treating patients with other cancers, including multiple myeloma.

In addition to drug costs, there is another issue at stake: the prescribing oncologist is reimbursed by Medicare Part D at 6% for whichever drug is chosen, which represents a “financial conflict” for oncologists, said Vincent Rajkumar, MD, professor of medicine and a hematologist/oncologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

There is also a difference in how the drugs are administered, which may influence patient preference, the myeloma experts noted. Zoledronic acid is given intravenously every 3 months and requires a 15-minute infusion at a center, while denosumab needs to be given more frequently (every month) but is administered by subcutaneous injection.

Dr. Francini reported receiving grants from Roche Italia and personal fees for research travel from Janssen-Cilag outside the submitted work. A number of other authors disclosed financial ties to Janssen or Amgen, makers of abiraterone and denosumab, respectively. The editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There may be a notable survival benefit for men with advanced prostate cancer and bone metastases when they are prescribed bone-protecting drugs after progressing to “castrate-resistant” status (no longer responsive to androgen deprivation therapy) and move onto first-line therapy with abiraterone acetate (Zytiga).

Results from a retrospective study show that the addition of bone resorption inhibitors (BRIs), including zoledronic acid and denosumab (Xgeva), to abiraterone plus prednisolone was associated with significantly longer overall survival (OS). The median OS was increased by nearly 9 months among recipients, compared with men who didn’t receive these drugs in this setting.

The findings were published online July 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

All men with prostate cancer should receive BRIs “as the disease reaches the castration resistance with bone metastases stage, as recommended by the international guidelines,” lead author Edoardo Francini, MD, PhD, of the University of Florence (Italy) said in a comment.

While there is no evidence that BRIs – when used alone – may improve survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with bone involvement, there has been a “suggestion” of a survival benefit with BRIs when combined with other anticancer therapies in this setting, say the authors.

So Dr. Francini and a team of international coinvestigators looked at the medical records of men with mCRPC and bone metastases treated at eight institutions in Canada, Europe, and the United States and focused on patients who received abiraterone acetate (with prednisone) because it is the most common first-line therapy in this setting.

Patients were classified by receipt versus nonreceipt of concomitant BRIs and subclassified by volume of disease (high or low volume).

There were two cohorts in the study population: 529 men (71.0%) who received abiraterone alone and 216 men (29.0%) who received abiraterone plus BRIs. The median follow-up was 23.5 months.

Patients in the BRI cohort experienced significantly longer OS compared with those in the abiraterone alone cohort (31.8 vs. 23.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; P < .001).

Notably, the OS benefit in the BRI cohort was greater for patients with high-volume versus low-volume disease (33.6 vs. 19.7 months; HR, 0.51; P < .001).

Dr. Francini hopes the new study results can effect change. “Hopefully, clinicians will be more inclined to use bone resorption inhibitors in combination with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as soon as the disease reaches the castration-resistance with bone metastases stage, as recommended by the international guidelines.” 
 

Importance of bone-targeted drugs

“This study highlights the importance of bone-targeted therapy in current practice for men with mCRPC and bone metastases,” Samuel Takvorian, MD, and Naomi Haas, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

But the study also reveals that work needs to be done to get clinicians to prescribe BRIs, they said, and that clinical pathways and behavioral “nudges” could help promote adoption.

Most (71%) of the men in this study did not get bone protective drug therapy, they pointed out, even though they were being treated at major hospital systems.

So, why aren’t more men receiving BRIs?

“I think this is less likely due to poor communication from professional societies (the guidelines are clear) and more likely due to bone health being low on the list of priorities for these patients and clinician uncertainty and/or lack of appreciation of the clinical benefit of these agents,” Dr. Takvorian said in an interview.

“When prostate cancer progresses to the castration-resistant phase, clinicians (and patients) rightfully are focused on the next cancer-directed therapy. However, this may be at the expense of supportive care, like bone agents, which often gets short shrift,” he added.

As would be expected, the men who were taking BRIs had a significantly shorter time to first skeletal-related events (SREs), compared with those who were not (32.4 vs. 42.7 months; HR, 1.27; P = .04), and the risk of a first SRE was more than double in the subgroup with low-volume disease (HR, 2.29; P < .001).

“These SREs collectively represent a clinically meaningful outcome that is often measured in clinical trials,” the editorialists observed. In the current study, SREs were comprised of pathological fractures, spinal cord compression, or the need for surgery or radiotherapy to bone.

“Up to one-half of men with mCRPC, the advanced and often fatal stage of disease, experience SREs, which are associated with considerable morbidity, decreased survival, and increased health care utilization and costs,” they wrote.
 

Costly vs. inexpensive BRI

The study found no difference in the OS benefit between the different BRIs used, that is, between that seen with zoledronic acid versus denosumab.

The editorialists suggested that this finding is important, even though it “must be considered preliminary given the limitations of a retrospective study.” These results add “to data suggesting that these agents are comparably beneficial; thus, decisions between them should focus on clinical factors, such as kidney function, patient preference, and cost.”

The two agents differ mechanistically, they added, with zoledronic acid preferentially inhibiting osteoclast proliferation and denosumab inhibiting an important factor in osteoclast maturation.

In terms of having differentiating characteristics, the editorialists say that zoledronic acid is “more often associated with acute phase reactions and required monitoring of kidney function” while “denosumab conferred a higher risk of hypocalcemia.” Rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw are comparable.

International guidelines endorse the use of either agent for the treatment of men with mCRPC. But “some argue that the marginal benefit of denosumab must be weighed against its dramatically higher cost (the annual cost of zoledronic acid is approximately $140 vs. $29,000 for denosumab),” the editorialists said.

The dramatically higher cost of denosumab versus zoledronic acid has also been noted by other oncologists treating patients with other cancers, including multiple myeloma.

In addition to drug costs, there is another issue at stake: the prescribing oncologist is reimbursed by Medicare Part D at 6% for whichever drug is chosen, which represents a “financial conflict” for oncologists, said Vincent Rajkumar, MD, professor of medicine and a hematologist/oncologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

There is also a difference in how the drugs are administered, which may influence patient preference, the myeloma experts noted. Zoledronic acid is given intravenously every 3 months and requires a 15-minute infusion at a center, while denosumab needs to be given more frequently (every month) but is administered by subcutaneous injection.

Dr. Francini reported receiving grants from Roche Italia and personal fees for research travel from Janssen-Cilag outside the submitted work. A number of other authors disclosed financial ties to Janssen or Amgen, makers of abiraterone and denosumab, respectively. The editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There may be a notable survival benefit for men with advanced prostate cancer and bone metastases when they are prescribed bone-protecting drugs after progressing to “castrate-resistant” status (no longer responsive to androgen deprivation therapy) and move onto first-line therapy with abiraterone acetate (Zytiga).

Results from a retrospective study show that the addition of bone resorption inhibitors (BRIs), including zoledronic acid and denosumab (Xgeva), to abiraterone plus prednisolone was associated with significantly longer overall survival (OS). The median OS was increased by nearly 9 months among recipients, compared with men who didn’t receive these drugs in this setting.

The findings were published online July 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

All men with prostate cancer should receive BRIs “as the disease reaches the castration resistance with bone metastases stage, as recommended by the international guidelines,” lead author Edoardo Francini, MD, PhD, of the University of Florence (Italy) said in a comment.

While there is no evidence that BRIs – when used alone – may improve survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with bone involvement, there has been a “suggestion” of a survival benefit with BRIs when combined with other anticancer therapies in this setting, say the authors.

So Dr. Francini and a team of international coinvestigators looked at the medical records of men with mCRPC and bone metastases treated at eight institutions in Canada, Europe, and the United States and focused on patients who received abiraterone acetate (with prednisone) because it is the most common first-line therapy in this setting.

Patients were classified by receipt versus nonreceipt of concomitant BRIs and subclassified by volume of disease (high or low volume).

There were two cohorts in the study population: 529 men (71.0%) who received abiraterone alone and 216 men (29.0%) who received abiraterone plus BRIs. The median follow-up was 23.5 months.

Patients in the BRI cohort experienced significantly longer OS compared with those in the abiraterone alone cohort (31.8 vs. 23.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; P < .001).

Notably, the OS benefit in the BRI cohort was greater for patients with high-volume versus low-volume disease (33.6 vs. 19.7 months; HR, 0.51; P < .001).

Dr. Francini hopes the new study results can effect change. “Hopefully, clinicians will be more inclined to use bone resorption inhibitors in combination with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as soon as the disease reaches the castration-resistance with bone metastases stage, as recommended by the international guidelines.” 
 

Importance of bone-targeted drugs

“This study highlights the importance of bone-targeted therapy in current practice for men with mCRPC and bone metastases,” Samuel Takvorian, MD, and Naomi Haas, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

But the study also reveals that work needs to be done to get clinicians to prescribe BRIs, they said, and that clinical pathways and behavioral “nudges” could help promote adoption.

Most (71%) of the men in this study did not get bone protective drug therapy, they pointed out, even though they were being treated at major hospital systems.

So, why aren’t more men receiving BRIs?

“I think this is less likely due to poor communication from professional societies (the guidelines are clear) and more likely due to bone health being low on the list of priorities for these patients and clinician uncertainty and/or lack of appreciation of the clinical benefit of these agents,” Dr. Takvorian said in an interview.

“When prostate cancer progresses to the castration-resistant phase, clinicians (and patients) rightfully are focused on the next cancer-directed therapy. However, this may be at the expense of supportive care, like bone agents, which often gets short shrift,” he added.

As would be expected, the men who were taking BRIs had a significantly shorter time to first skeletal-related events (SREs), compared with those who were not (32.4 vs. 42.7 months; HR, 1.27; P = .04), and the risk of a first SRE was more than double in the subgroup with low-volume disease (HR, 2.29; P < .001).

“These SREs collectively represent a clinically meaningful outcome that is often measured in clinical trials,” the editorialists observed. In the current study, SREs were comprised of pathological fractures, spinal cord compression, or the need for surgery or radiotherapy to bone.

“Up to one-half of men with mCRPC, the advanced and often fatal stage of disease, experience SREs, which are associated with considerable morbidity, decreased survival, and increased health care utilization and costs,” they wrote.
 

Costly vs. inexpensive BRI

The study found no difference in the OS benefit between the different BRIs used, that is, between that seen with zoledronic acid versus denosumab.

The editorialists suggested that this finding is important, even though it “must be considered preliminary given the limitations of a retrospective study.” These results add “to data suggesting that these agents are comparably beneficial; thus, decisions between them should focus on clinical factors, such as kidney function, patient preference, and cost.”

The two agents differ mechanistically, they added, with zoledronic acid preferentially inhibiting osteoclast proliferation and denosumab inhibiting an important factor in osteoclast maturation.

In terms of having differentiating characteristics, the editorialists say that zoledronic acid is “more often associated with acute phase reactions and required monitoring of kidney function” while “denosumab conferred a higher risk of hypocalcemia.” Rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw are comparable.

International guidelines endorse the use of either agent for the treatment of men with mCRPC. But “some argue that the marginal benefit of denosumab must be weighed against its dramatically higher cost (the annual cost of zoledronic acid is approximately $140 vs. $29,000 for denosumab),” the editorialists said.

The dramatically higher cost of denosumab versus zoledronic acid has also been noted by other oncologists treating patients with other cancers, including multiple myeloma.

In addition to drug costs, there is another issue at stake: the prescribing oncologist is reimbursed by Medicare Part D at 6% for whichever drug is chosen, which represents a “financial conflict” for oncologists, said Vincent Rajkumar, MD, professor of medicine and a hematologist/oncologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

There is also a difference in how the drugs are administered, which may influence patient preference, the myeloma experts noted. Zoledronic acid is given intravenously every 3 months and requires a 15-minute infusion at a center, while denosumab needs to be given more frequently (every month) but is administered by subcutaneous injection.

Dr. Francini reported receiving grants from Roche Italia and personal fees for research travel from Janssen-Cilag outside the submitted work. A number of other authors disclosed financial ties to Janssen or Amgen, makers of abiraterone and denosumab, respectively. The editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.

The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.

“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”

However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.

“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”

Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.

Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.

“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”

The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.

Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.

For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.

“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.

Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.

Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.

“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”

Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.

The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.

The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.

“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”

However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.

“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”

Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.

Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.

“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”

The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.

Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.

For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.

“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.

Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.

Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.

“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”

Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.

The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.

The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.

“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”

However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.

“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”

Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.

Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.

“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”

The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.

Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.

For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.

“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.

Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.

Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.

“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”

Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.

Consumers should stop using certain brands of spray-on sunscreen products made by Johnson & Johnson. The company has issued a voluntary recall after finding low levels of benzene, a known cancer-causing agent, in some samples.

Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”

The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:

• NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
• AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.

These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.

At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.

Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.

One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.

Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.

That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.

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

Consumers should stop using certain brands of spray-on sunscreen products made by Johnson & Johnson. The company has issued a voluntary recall after finding low levels of benzene, a known cancer-causing agent, in some samples.

Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”

The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:

• NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
• AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.

These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.

At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.

Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.

One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.

Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.

That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.

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

Consumers should stop using certain brands of spray-on sunscreen products made by Johnson & Johnson. The company has issued a voluntary recall after finding low levels of benzene, a known cancer-causing agent, in some samples.

Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”

The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:

• NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
• AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.

These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.

At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.

Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.

One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.

Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.

That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.

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

Use of metformin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of developing basal cell carcinoma (BCC), based on data from a population case-control study in Iceland.

“In addition to general anticarcinogenic effects, metformin has also been shown to directly inhibit the sonic hedgehog pathway, a key pathway in basal cell carcinoma (BCC) pathogenesis,” Jonas A. Adalsteinsson, MD, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, and colleagues wrote. “The relationship between metformin and keratinocyte carcinoma has not been well-characterized but is of importance considering that metformin is a commonly prescribed medication.”

They added that the hedgehog pathway inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib (Odomzo), approved for treating BCC, “are highly effective for BCC prevention, but their broad use for BCC prophylaxis is limited due to numerous side effects.”

In the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers identified 6,880 first-time cancer patients with BCC, squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCCis), or invasive SCC, and 69,620 population controls using data from the Icelandic Cancer Registry and the Icelandic Prescription Medicine Register between 2003 and 2017. Metformin exposure was defined as having filled at least one prescription of metformin more than 2 years prior to cancer diagnosis. They used grams and daily dose units of metformin in their analysis; one DDU of metformin, “or its average daily maintenance dose when used for its primary indication, is 2 grams,” they noted.

Overall, metformin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing BCC, compared with nonuse (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.83).

The reduced risk occurred similarly across age and gender subgroups, with the exception of individuals younger than 60 years, the researchers said. “This might signify that metformin has less of a protective effect in younger individuals, but we might also have lacked power in this category.” The association with reduced BCC risk remained significant at all three cumulative dose levels measured: 1-500 DDUs, 501-1,500 DDUs, and more than 1,500 DDUs.

Metformin use was not significantly associated with reduced risk of invasive SCC (aOR, 1.01) and in most cases of SCCis. However, the 501-1,500 DDU dose category was associated with a slight increase in risk of SCCis (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96), “showing a possible increased risk of SCCis,” the authors wrote.

The decrease in BCC risk was seen across all metformin dosing levels, but the reason for this remains unclear, and might be related to a confounding factor that was not considered in this study, the researchers said. “It could also be that metformin’s BCC risk-lowering effect is immediate, with only a low dose being needed to see a clinical benefit.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the inability to adjust for factors including ultraviolet exposure, Fitzpatrick skin type, and comorbidities. The frequent use of metformin by people with type 2 diabetes suggests diabetes itself or other diabetes medications could be possible confounding factors, the researchers wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, and the data suggest an association between reduced risk of first-time BCC and metformin use, they added.

“Randomized, prospective trials are required to fully understand the effect metformin has on BCC and SCC risk,” the researchers concluded.

“There is a dire need to reduce incidence of skin cancers in general, and consequently a need for new non-surgical treatment options for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers,” Amor Khachemoune, MD, a dermatologist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and the department of dermatology of the Veteran Affairs NY Harbor Healthcare System, also in Brooklyn, said in an interview.

Dr. Khachemoune, who was not involved with the study, said that he was not surprised by the findings. “Like other well-studied sonic hedgehog inhibitors, vismodegib and sonidegib, metformin has a demonstrated effect on this pathway. The medical community outside of dermatology has extensive experience with the use of metformin for a host of other indications, including its role as anticarcinogenic, so it seemed natural that one would consider widening its use to quell the ever-expanding cases of basal cell carcinomas.”

However, complications from long-term use, though likely rare, could be a limitation in using metformin as a chemoprotective agent, Dr. Khachemoune said. Metformin-associated lactic acidosis is one example of a rare, but potentially life-threatening adverse event.

“Finding the right dosage and having an algorithm for follow up monitoring of side effects would certainly need to be put in place in a standardized way,” he emphasized. “As stated by the authors of this study, more inclusive research involving other groups with nonkeratinocytic malignancies in larger cohorts is needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Khachemoune had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of metformin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of developing basal cell carcinoma (BCC), based on data from a population case-control study in Iceland.

“In addition to general anticarcinogenic effects, metformin has also been shown to directly inhibit the sonic hedgehog pathway, a key pathway in basal cell carcinoma (BCC) pathogenesis,” Jonas A. Adalsteinsson, MD, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, and colleagues wrote. “The relationship between metformin and keratinocyte carcinoma has not been well-characterized but is of importance considering that metformin is a commonly prescribed medication.”

They added that the hedgehog pathway inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib (Odomzo), approved for treating BCC, “are highly effective for BCC prevention, but their broad use for BCC prophylaxis is limited due to numerous side effects.”

In the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers identified 6,880 first-time cancer patients with BCC, squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCCis), or invasive SCC, and 69,620 population controls using data from the Icelandic Cancer Registry and the Icelandic Prescription Medicine Register between 2003 and 2017. Metformin exposure was defined as having filled at least one prescription of metformin more than 2 years prior to cancer diagnosis. They used grams and daily dose units of metformin in their analysis; one DDU of metformin, “or its average daily maintenance dose when used for its primary indication, is 2 grams,” they noted.

Overall, metformin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing BCC, compared with nonuse (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.83).

The reduced risk occurred similarly across age and gender subgroups, with the exception of individuals younger than 60 years, the researchers said. “This might signify that metformin has less of a protective effect in younger individuals, but we might also have lacked power in this category.” The association with reduced BCC risk remained significant at all three cumulative dose levels measured: 1-500 DDUs, 501-1,500 DDUs, and more than 1,500 DDUs.

Metformin use was not significantly associated with reduced risk of invasive SCC (aOR, 1.01) and in most cases of SCCis. However, the 501-1,500 DDU dose category was associated with a slight increase in risk of SCCis (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96), “showing a possible increased risk of SCCis,” the authors wrote.

The decrease in BCC risk was seen across all metformin dosing levels, but the reason for this remains unclear, and might be related to a confounding factor that was not considered in this study, the researchers said. “It could also be that metformin’s BCC risk-lowering effect is immediate, with only a low dose being needed to see a clinical benefit.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the inability to adjust for factors including ultraviolet exposure, Fitzpatrick skin type, and comorbidities. The frequent use of metformin by people with type 2 diabetes suggests diabetes itself or other diabetes medications could be possible confounding factors, the researchers wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, and the data suggest an association between reduced risk of first-time BCC and metformin use, they added.

“Randomized, prospective trials are required to fully understand the effect metformin has on BCC and SCC risk,” the researchers concluded.

“There is a dire need to reduce incidence of skin cancers in general, and consequently a need for new non-surgical treatment options for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers,” Amor Khachemoune, MD, a dermatologist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and the department of dermatology of the Veteran Affairs NY Harbor Healthcare System, also in Brooklyn, said in an interview.

Dr. Khachemoune, who was not involved with the study, said that he was not surprised by the findings. “Like other well-studied sonic hedgehog inhibitors, vismodegib and sonidegib, metformin has a demonstrated effect on this pathway. The medical community outside of dermatology has extensive experience with the use of metformin for a host of other indications, including its role as anticarcinogenic, so it seemed natural that one would consider widening its use to quell the ever-expanding cases of basal cell carcinomas.”

However, complications from long-term use, though likely rare, could be a limitation in using metformin as a chemoprotective agent, Dr. Khachemoune said. Metformin-associated lactic acidosis is one example of a rare, but potentially life-threatening adverse event.

“Finding the right dosage and having an algorithm for follow up monitoring of side effects would certainly need to be put in place in a standardized way,” he emphasized. “As stated by the authors of this study, more inclusive research involving other groups with nonkeratinocytic malignancies in larger cohorts is needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Khachemoune had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of metformin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of developing basal cell carcinoma (BCC), based on data from a population case-control study in Iceland.

“In addition to general anticarcinogenic effects, metformin has also been shown to directly inhibit the sonic hedgehog pathway, a key pathway in basal cell carcinoma (BCC) pathogenesis,” Jonas A. Adalsteinsson, MD, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, and colleagues wrote. “The relationship between metformin and keratinocyte carcinoma has not been well-characterized but is of importance considering that metformin is a commonly prescribed medication.”

They added that the hedgehog pathway inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib (Odomzo), approved for treating BCC, “are highly effective for BCC prevention, but their broad use for BCC prophylaxis is limited due to numerous side effects.”

In the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers identified 6,880 first-time cancer patients with BCC, squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCCis), or invasive SCC, and 69,620 population controls using data from the Icelandic Cancer Registry and the Icelandic Prescription Medicine Register between 2003 and 2017. Metformin exposure was defined as having filled at least one prescription of metformin more than 2 years prior to cancer diagnosis. They used grams and daily dose units of metformin in their analysis; one DDU of metformin, “or its average daily maintenance dose when used for its primary indication, is 2 grams,” they noted.

Overall, metformin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing BCC, compared with nonuse (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.83).

The reduced risk occurred similarly across age and gender subgroups, with the exception of individuals younger than 60 years, the researchers said. “This might signify that metformin has less of a protective effect in younger individuals, but we might also have lacked power in this category.” The association with reduced BCC risk remained significant at all three cumulative dose levels measured: 1-500 DDUs, 501-1,500 DDUs, and more than 1,500 DDUs.

Metformin use was not significantly associated with reduced risk of invasive SCC (aOR, 1.01) and in most cases of SCCis. However, the 501-1,500 DDU dose category was associated with a slight increase in risk of SCCis (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96), “showing a possible increased risk of SCCis,” the authors wrote.

The decrease in BCC risk was seen across all metformin dosing levels, but the reason for this remains unclear, and might be related to a confounding factor that was not considered in this study, the researchers said. “It could also be that metformin’s BCC risk-lowering effect is immediate, with only a low dose being needed to see a clinical benefit.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the inability to adjust for factors including ultraviolet exposure, Fitzpatrick skin type, and comorbidities. The frequent use of metformin by people with type 2 diabetes suggests diabetes itself or other diabetes medications could be possible confounding factors, the researchers wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, and the data suggest an association between reduced risk of first-time BCC and metformin use, they added.

“Randomized, prospective trials are required to fully understand the effect metformin has on BCC and SCC risk,” the researchers concluded.

“There is a dire need to reduce incidence of skin cancers in general, and consequently a need for new non-surgical treatment options for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers,” Amor Khachemoune, MD, a dermatologist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and the department of dermatology of the Veteran Affairs NY Harbor Healthcare System, also in Brooklyn, said in an interview.

Dr. Khachemoune, who was not involved with the study, said that he was not surprised by the findings. “Like other well-studied sonic hedgehog inhibitors, vismodegib and sonidegib, metformin has a demonstrated effect on this pathway. The medical community outside of dermatology has extensive experience with the use of metformin for a host of other indications, including its role as anticarcinogenic, so it seemed natural that one would consider widening its use to quell the ever-expanding cases of basal cell carcinomas.”

However, complications from long-term use, though likely rare, could be a limitation in using metformin as a chemoprotective agent, Dr. Khachemoune said. Metformin-associated lactic acidosis is one example of a rare, but potentially life-threatening adverse event.

“Finding the right dosage and having an algorithm for follow up monitoring of side effects would certainly need to be put in place in a standardized way,” he emphasized. “As stated by the authors of this study, more inclusive research involving other groups with nonkeratinocytic malignancies in larger cohorts is needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Khachemoune had no financial conflicts to disclose.