CNS/Brain Cancer

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.

The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).

“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.

As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.

“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”

The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.

For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.

Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).

“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”

The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.

New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.

The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).

“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.

As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.

“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”

The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.

For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.

Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).

“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”

The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.

New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.

The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).

“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.

As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.

“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”

The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.

For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.

Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).

“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”

The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

In a large-scale study among Danish children, no statistically significant association was found between maternal hormonal contraception use and increased risk for central nervous system (CNS) tumors in their offspring.

The study was based on population-based registry data and included 1.1 million children age 19 or younger born in Denmark between 1996 and 2014.

The study, by Marie Hargreave, PhD, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, and colleagues, was published online Jan. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Exposure to sex hormones in utero is a recognized cause of cancer in affected offspring, note the authors. Also, the incidence of CNS tumors, among the most common and lethal childhood cancer types, appears to be increasing. Hence, they sought to investigate if there may be a relationship between the two.

During a mean follow-up of 12.9 years, the team found that 725 children were diagnosed with a CNS tumor (47.2% female). Mean age at diagnosis was 7 years. The team noted that 11.5%, 65.7%, and 22.8% of diagnosed children were born to mothers with recent, previous, or no use of hormonal contraception, respectively.

The adjusted incidence rate of CNS tumors was 5.0 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with recent hormonal contraception use (hazard ratio, 0.95), 4.5 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with previous use (HR, 0.86), and 5.3 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with no use.

While recent use of implants (HR, 0.9) and intrauterine devices (HR, 1.5) showed no statistically significant associations for the subgroups of nonoral progestin-only hormonal contraception assessed, the team found that progestin-only injections were significantly associated with an increased risk compared with no use (HR, 6.7). Also, in all post hoc sensitivity analyses, recent use of the main group of nonoral progestin-only products was significantly associated with CNS tumors.

The authors observe that an association between maternal use of injectable contraceptives and increased risk of chromosomal anomalies and major malformations in children has previously been reported. Those results for injections, however, were based on a small number of cases, the result of the likelihood test was null, and adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made. Even if the results for this subgroup are confirmed, the authors point out, because CNS tumors in children are uncommon, the high relative risk estimates would translate to low absolute risk increases.

Although the large number of person-years and cancers increases the statistical precision, and the population-based nationwide design increases the generalizability of the results, the authors caution that uncommonness of CNS tumors in children and the small number of cases in the studied cohort limit subgroup analyses and the statistical precision of certain estimates.

In an accompanying editorial, Logan G. Spector, PhD, and Christopher L. Moertel, MD, from the University of Minnesota Medical School, and H. Irene Su, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, echo the authors’ conclusions, and state: “Thus, women should be reassured about the use of hormonal contraception, including progestin-only injections, and the lack of any increased risk of CNS tumors in their offspring.”

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation, the Arvid Nilssons Foundation, the Gangsted Foundation, the Harboe Foundation, and the Johannes Clemmesens Foundation. Co-author Lina S. Mørch, PhD, reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk as an employee from 2017 to 2019 and grants from Novo Nordisk for a collaborative research project outside the submitted work. Editorialist Christopher Moertel, MD, reported receiving personal fees from OX2 Therapeutics, a spin-off of the University of Minnesota that is involved in the development of brain tumor therapeutics.

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

In a large-scale study among Danish children, no statistically significant association was found between maternal hormonal contraception use and increased risk for central nervous system (CNS) tumors in their offspring.

The study was based on population-based registry data and included 1.1 million children age 19 or younger born in Denmark between 1996 and 2014.

The study, by Marie Hargreave, PhD, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, and colleagues, was published online Jan. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Exposure to sex hormones in utero is a recognized cause of cancer in affected offspring, note the authors. Also, the incidence of CNS tumors, among the most common and lethal childhood cancer types, appears to be increasing. Hence, they sought to investigate if there may be a relationship between the two.

During a mean follow-up of 12.9 years, the team found that 725 children were diagnosed with a CNS tumor (47.2% female). Mean age at diagnosis was 7 years. The team noted that 11.5%, 65.7%, and 22.8% of diagnosed children were born to mothers with recent, previous, or no use of hormonal contraception, respectively.

The adjusted incidence rate of CNS tumors was 5.0 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with recent hormonal contraception use (hazard ratio, 0.95), 4.5 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with previous use (HR, 0.86), and 5.3 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with no use.

While recent use of implants (HR, 0.9) and intrauterine devices (HR, 1.5) showed no statistically significant associations for the subgroups of nonoral progestin-only hormonal contraception assessed, the team found that progestin-only injections were significantly associated with an increased risk compared with no use (HR, 6.7). Also, in all post hoc sensitivity analyses, recent use of the main group of nonoral progestin-only products was significantly associated with CNS tumors.

The authors observe that an association between maternal use of injectable contraceptives and increased risk of chromosomal anomalies and major malformations in children has previously been reported. Those results for injections, however, were based on a small number of cases, the result of the likelihood test was null, and adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made. Even if the results for this subgroup are confirmed, the authors point out, because CNS tumors in children are uncommon, the high relative risk estimates would translate to low absolute risk increases.

Although the large number of person-years and cancers increases the statistical precision, and the population-based nationwide design increases the generalizability of the results, the authors caution that uncommonness of CNS tumors in children and the small number of cases in the studied cohort limit subgroup analyses and the statistical precision of certain estimates.

In an accompanying editorial, Logan G. Spector, PhD, and Christopher L. Moertel, MD, from the University of Minnesota Medical School, and H. Irene Su, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, echo the authors’ conclusions, and state: “Thus, women should be reassured about the use of hormonal contraception, including progestin-only injections, and the lack of any increased risk of CNS tumors in their offspring.”

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation, the Arvid Nilssons Foundation, the Gangsted Foundation, the Harboe Foundation, and the Johannes Clemmesens Foundation. Co-author Lina S. Mørch, PhD, reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk as an employee from 2017 to 2019 and grants from Novo Nordisk for a collaborative research project outside the submitted work. Editorialist Christopher Moertel, MD, reported receiving personal fees from OX2 Therapeutics, a spin-off of the University of Minnesota that is involved in the development of brain tumor therapeutics.

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

In a large-scale study among Danish children, no statistically significant association was found between maternal hormonal contraception use and increased risk for central nervous system (CNS) tumors in their offspring.

The study was based on population-based registry data and included 1.1 million children age 19 or younger born in Denmark between 1996 and 2014.

The study, by Marie Hargreave, PhD, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, and colleagues, was published online Jan. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Exposure to sex hormones in utero is a recognized cause of cancer in affected offspring, note the authors. Also, the incidence of CNS tumors, among the most common and lethal childhood cancer types, appears to be increasing. Hence, they sought to investigate if there may be a relationship between the two.

During a mean follow-up of 12.9 years, the team found that 725 children were diagnosed with a CNS tumor (47.2% female). Mean age at diagnosis was 7 years. The team noted that 11.5%, 65.7%, and 22.8% of diagnosed children were born to mothers with recent, previous, or no use of hormonal contraception, respectively.

The adjusted incidence rate of CNS tumors was 5.0 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with recent hormonal contraception use (hazard ratio, 0.95), 4.5 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with previous use (HR, 0.86), and 5.3 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with no use.

While recent use of implants (HR, 0.9) and intrauterine devices (HR, 1.5) showed no statistically significant associations for the subgroups of nonoral progestin-only hormonal contraception assessed, the team found that progestin-only injections were significantly associated with an increased risk compared with no use (HR, 6.7). Also, in all post hoc sensitivity analyses, recent use of the main group of nonoral progestin-only products was significantly associated with CNS tumors.

The authors observe that an association between maternal use of injectable contraceptives and increased risk of chromosomal anomalies and major malformations in children has previously been reported. Those results for injections, however, were based on a small number of cases, the result of the likelihood test was null, and adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made. Even if the results for this subgroup are confirmed, the authors point out, because CNS tumors in children are uncommon, the high relative risk estimates would translate to low absolute risk increases.

Although the large number of person-years and cancers increases the statistical precision, and the population-based nationwide design increases the generalizability of the results, the authors caution that uncommonness of CNS tumors in children and the small number of cases in the studied cohort limit subgroup analyses and the statistical precision of certain estimates.

In an accompanying editorial, Logan G. Spector, PhD, and Christopher L. Moertel, MD, from the University of Minnesota Medical School, and H. Irene Su, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, echo the authors’ conclusions, and state: “Thus, women should be reassured about the use of hormonal contraception, including progestin-only injections, and the lack of any increased risk of CNS tumors in their offspring.”

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation, the Arvid Nilssons Foundation, the Gangsted Foundation, the Harboe Foundation, and the Johannes Clemmesens Foundation. Co-author Lina S. Mørch, PhD, reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk as an employee from 2017 to 2019 and grants from Novo Nordisk for a collaborative research project outside the submitted work. Editorialist Christopher Moertel, MD, reported receiving personal fees from OX2 Therapeutics, a spin-off of the University of Minnesota that is involved in the development of brain tumor therapeutics.

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

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

The use of robotically assisted surgical devices for benign and malignant tumors is here to stay, but the decision to perform robot-assisted surgery should be driven by clinical outcomes, not convenience, physicians say.

“The problem in minimally invasive surgery, especially in cancer surgery, is that the concept has been flip-flopped,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon turned patient advocate. “The main purpose of surgery should be removal of diseased tissue or repair of damaged tissue with adequate safety. The size of the incision on that triage scheme is secondary.”

In 2013, Dr. Noorchashm’s wife, Amy Reed, MD, an anesthesiologist, had a hysterectomy for treatment of severe uterine fibroids. The surgery was performed with a laparoscopic power morcellator, which led to the dissemination of cells from a previously undetected abdominal lesion. She was later diagnosed with stage 4 leiomyosarcoma and died in May 2017.

Dr. Noorchashm said the problem with robotic surgery isn’t the technology itself or how it’s used, but why it’s used in the first place. “Not only was there an extreme level of laxity with respect to the malignant potential of fibroids, but also that the size of the incision supersedes the safety of the procedure.”

The ultimate goal of oncologic surgery is to achieve an en bloc resection with clean surgical margins and removal of the tumor intact, Dr. Noorchashm said. The only scientific way of showing the benefits or therapeutic equivalence of new technology is through noninferiority comparison trials.
 

Robotic surgery inching toward $14 billion in revenue by 2028

Although robotic surgical technology has been in use since the 1990s, the technology is still considered to be its infancy. The first Food and Drug Administration–approved robotics platform, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) was approved by the FDA in 2000. And, now, with its patent expiring in 2022, competitors will be developing and launching new products for abdominal and colorectal surgery, partial knee replacements, cardiovascular procedures, head and neck surgery, and spinal procedures.

Robotic surgery is a rapidly expanding area with new product launches announced daily. In August 2021, the market research firm Grand View Research, reported the surgical robot marketplace is projected to reach $14 billion by 2028, up from $3.6 billion this year.

“This new era of robotic-assisted surgery attracts both surgeons and patients. Robotic surgery has reshaped our surgeries over the last 2 decades, and robots are now used in almost in every surgical field. Still, as surgeons, we continue to look – with great interest – to new robotic companies that may be able to provide better robots in a more cost-effective manner,” wrote urologists Ahmad Almujalhem and Koon Ho Rha in a review published in the journal BJUI Compass.

However, the authors wrote that, although the market is competitive, cost remains an issue, as are competing interests. In addition, many companies are creating replicas of existing technologies instead of focusing on new designs and new technology. “Although the da Vinci system propelled many robots to market, there has been no significant improvement in the console,” they added.

The technology is attractive to both surgeons and patients. “Surgeons are attracted to newer technologies, better vision, and easier learning curves. Patients are also attracted to robotic surgery, as this technology is considered state of the art and is associated with reduced pain and scar size,” the authors wrote.
 

Outcomes depend on many variables

In terms of outcomes, the literature is mixed. It largely depends on a number of variables from the site of surgery, the type of cancer, technology used, and the surgeon’s skill.

Jung Mogg Kim, MD, PhD, a microbiologist with Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, published a systemic review and meta-analysis of 27 clinical reports in PLoS ONE assessing clinical outcomes. They found that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not result in statistically superior outcomes, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, except for lower estimated blood loss with robots. Operative time and total complications rates were “significantly more favorable” with conventional laparoscopic procedures.

Thomas E. Ahlering, MD, a robotic prostatectomy specialist at the University of California, Irvine, explained that the success or failure of robot-assisted surgery can be highly dependent on the body site and tumor type.

“The oncologic outcome, as long as the surgeon is up to speed, is not going to be better, but the goal is to be as good,” he said in an interview.

In most cases, Dr. Ahlering said, the goal of surgery is to remove a viable tumor with clean margins while leaving the organ intact. But in prostate surgery, the goal is to remove the entire organ while trying to preserve urinary continence and sexual function.

“One of the biggest benefits of the robot is that we’re able to use it in a laparoscopic environment meaning that we need a pneumoperitoneum [which] dramatically decreases bleeding. In prostate cancer, the area is so highly vascular that bleeding is a major issue,” he said.

The same benefits of reduced bleeding, improved visualization, and precision are also seen with robotic-assisted surgery for renal cancer, he noted.

He also emphasized that positive surgical margins, while less desirable than complete elimination of malignant cells, is not nearly as dire in prostate cancer as it is in surgery for other malignancies, such as soft-tissue sarcomas.

“The majority of cases are never going to recur, and if they do recur they essentially never lead to metastatic disease to bone, much less to prostate cancer–related death. The only thing they can do is slightly increase the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] recurrence,” he said.

Assuming that outcomes are comparable between an open procedure, conventional laparoscopic procedure, or robot-assisted approach, surgeons “will almost all go for the robot. It’s easier on the surgeon and it’s easier on the system,” Dr. Ahlering said.

In skilled hands for select patients, the use of a carefully researched and well-designed surgical assistive device can result in outcomes that are comparable with those seen in open surgical procedures, with robot-assisted surgery offering the possibility of less perioperative bleeding, lower postoperative morbidity, and faster recovery times.

“In our program we have been using robots to perform robotic radical prostatectomy and nephron-sparing surgery – partial nephrectomy and we’re also using them to perform intracorporeal bowel reconstruction and robotic radical cystectomy,” said Ashutosh Tewari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Robot-assisted surgery can be used “anywhere where you have to be selective, anywhere where you have to be reconstructive, anywhere where [assisted] vision can help, anywhere where the lack of bleeding will be of help to patients, and anywhere where a smaller incision can achieve the same goals,” Dr. Tewari said in an interview. Dr. Tewari’s Mount Sinai colleagues reported at the 2021 American Urological Association annual meeting, robotic-assisted salvage radical and partial nephrectomies were found to be safe and feasible procedures in patients with metachronous kidney tumors. For patients with early invasive cancer (stage pT1), oncologic outcomes with robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were similar to those of patients who underwent radical surgery. The authors concluded that salvage robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy “can be considered in this group of patients due to the risk of future recurrences and need to preserve renal function.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline for prostate cancer, updated in September 2021, states that “laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are commonly used and are considered comparable to conventional approaches in experienced hands.”

In 2018, researchers in a multinational comparison trial reported that patients with cervical cancer who were randomly assigned to minimally invasive robot-assisted radical hysterectomy had significantly lower rates of both disease-free survival and overall survival than women randomized to open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The use of robotically assisted surgical (RAS) devices could possibly create a “shielding layer” between the surgical team and patient reducing the risk of infection, according to Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, FMH, a neurosurgeon with the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Zemmar and colleagues recently published a perspective in Nature Machine Intelligence on trends in the use of surgical robots.

“In the operating theatre, robots can place intravascular lines, intubate the patient and manage the airway. The integration of a robot as a shielding layer, physically separating the health care worker and patient, is a powerful tool to combat the omnipresent fear of pathogen contamination and maintain surgical volumes,” Dr. Zemmar and colleagues wrote.
 

Surgical vs. clinical outcomes

In July 2021, this news organization reported that clinical trials of RAS for nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures were looking primarily at cosmetic or surgical outcomes and were not collecting cancer outcomes and if they were, it was secondary to cosmetic or surgical outcomes.

The FDA followed up by issuing a safety communication in August warning patients and providers that neither the safety nor efficacy of RAS for use in mastectomy procedures or treatment of breast cancer have been established.

“In addition, the FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted using RAS devices to perform mastectomies for the prevention or treatment of cancer without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the communication stated.

Dr. Tewari disclosed relationships with various companies. Dr. Noorchashm had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ahlering disclosed past funding or other considerations from Intuitive Robotics.

The use of robotically assisted surgical devices for benign and malignant tumors is here to stay, but the decision to perform robot-assisted surgery should be driven by clinical outcomes, not convenience, physicians say.

“The problem in minimally invasive surgery, especially in cancer surgery, is that the concept has been flip-flopped,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon turned patient advocate. “The main purpose of surgery should be removal of diseased tissue or repair of damaged tissue with adequate safety. The size of the incision on that triage scheme is secondary.”

In 2013, Dr. Noorchashm’s wife, Amy Reed, MD, an anesthesiologist, had a hysterectomy for treatment of severe uterine fibroids. The surgery was performed with a laparoscopic power morcellator, which led to the dissemination of cells from a previously undetected abdominal lesion. She was later diagnosed with stage 4 leiomyosarcoma and died in May 2017.

Dr. Noorchashm said the problem with robotic surgery isn’t the technology itself or how it’s used, but why it’s used in the first place. “Not only was there an extreme level of laxity with respect to the malignant potential of fibroids, but also that the size of the incision supersedes the safety of the procedure.”

The ultimate goal of oncologic surgery is to achieve an en bloc resection with clean surgical margins and removal of the tumor intact, Dr. Noorchashm said. The only scientific way of showing the benefits or therapeutic equivalence of new technology is through noninferiority comparison trials.
 

Robotic surgery inching toward $14 billion in revenue by 2028

Although robotic surgical technology has been in use since the 1990s, the technology is still considered to be its infancy. The first Food and Drug Administration–approved robotics platform, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) was approved by the FDA in 2000. And, now, with its patent expiring in 2022, competitors will be developing and launching new products for abdominal and colorectal surgery, partial knee replacements, cardiovascular procedures, head and neck surgery, and spinal procedures.

Robotic surgery is a rapidly expanding area with new product launches announced daily. In August 2021, the market research firm Grand View Research, reported the surgical robot marketplace is projected to reach $14 billion by 2028, up from $3.6 billion this year.

“This new era of robotic-assisted surgery attracts both surgeons and patients. Robotic surgery has reshaped our surgeries over the last 2 decades, and robots are now used in almost in every surgical field. Still, as surgeons, we continue to look – with great interest – to new robotic companies that may be able to provide better robots in a more cost-effective manner,” wrote urologists Ahmad Almujalhem and Koon Ho Rha in a review published in the journal BJUI Compass.

However, the authors wrote that, although the market is competitive, cost remains an issue, as are competing interests. In addition, many companies are creating replicas of existing technologies instead of focusing on new designs and new technology. “Although the da Vinci system propelled many robots to market, there has been no significant improvement in the console,” they added.

The technology is attractive to both surgeons and patients. “Surgeons are attracted to newer technologies, better vision, and easier learning curves. Patients are also attracted to robotic surgery, as this technology is considered state of the art and is associated with reduced pain and scar size,” the authors wrote.
 

Outcomes depend on many variables

In terms of outcomes, the literature is mixed. It largely depends on a number of variables from the site of surgery, the type of cancer, technology used, and the surgeon’s skill.

Jung Mogg Kim, MD, PhD, a microbiologist with Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, published a systemic review and meta-analysis of 27 clinical reports in PLoS ONE assessing clinical outcomes. They found that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not result in statistically superior outcomes, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, except for lower estimated blood loss with robots. Operative time and total complications rates were “significantly more favorable” with conventional laparoscopic procedures.

Thomas E. Ahlering, MD, a robotic prostatectomy specialist at the University of California, Irvine, explained that the success or failure of robot-assisted surgery can be highly dependent on the body site and tumor type.

“The oncologic outcome, as long as the surgeon is up to speed, is not going to be better, but the goal is to be as good,” he said in an interview.

In most cases, Dr. Ahlering said, the goal of surgery is to remove a viable tumor with clean margins while leaving the organ intact. But in prostate surgery, the goal is to remove the entire organ while trying to preserve urinary continence and sexual function.

“One of the biggest benefits of the robot is that we’re able to use it in a laparoscopic environment meaning that we need a pneumoperitoneum [which] dramatically decreases bleeding. In prostate cancer, the area is so highly vascular that bleeding is a major issue,” he said.

The same benefits of reduced bleeding, improved visualization, and precision are also seen with robotic-assisted surgery for renal cancer, he noted.

He also emphasized that positive surgical margins, while less desirable than complete elimination of malignant cells, is not nearly as dire in prostate cancer as it is in surgery for other malignancies, such as soft-tissue sarcomas.

“The majority of cases are never going to recur, and if they do recur they essentially never lead to metastatic disease to bone, much less to prostate cancer–related death. The only thing they can do is slightly increase the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] recurrence,” he said.

Assuming that outcomes are comparable between an open procedure, conventional laparoscopic procedure, or robot-assisted approach, surgeons “will almost all go for the robot. It’s easier on the surgeon and it’s easier on the system,” Dr. Ahlering said.

In skilled hands for select patients, the use of a carefully researched and well-designed surgical assistive device can result in outcomes that are comparable with those seen in open surgical procedures, with robot-assisted surgery offering the possibility of less perioperative bleeding, lower postoperative morbidity, and faster recovery times.

“In our program we have been using robots to perform robotic radical prostatectomy and nephron-sparing surgery – partial nephrectomy and we’re also using them to perform intracorporeal bowel reconstruction and robotic radical cystectomy,” said Ashutosh Tewari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Robot-assisted surgery can be used “anywhere where you have to be selective, anywhere where you have to be reconstructive, anywhere where [assisted] vision can help, anywhere where the lack of bleeding will be of help to patients, and anywhere where a smaller incision can achieve the same goals,” Dr. Tewari said in an interview. Dr. Tewari’s Mount Sinai colleagues reported at the 2021 American Urological Association annual meeting, robotic-assisted salvage radical and partial nephrectomies were found to be safe and feasible procedures in patients with metachronous kidney tumors. For patients with early invasive cancer (stage pT1), oncologic outcomes with robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were similar to those of patients who underwent radical surgery. The authors concluded that salvage robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy “can be considered in this group of patients due to the risk of future recurrences and need to preserve renal function.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline for prostate cancer, updated in September 2021, states that “laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are commonly used and are considered comparable to conventional approaches in experienced hands.”

In 2018, researchers in a multinational comparison trial reported that patients with cervical cancer who were randomly assigned to minimally invasive robot-assisted radical hysterectomy had significantly lower rates of both disease-free survival and overall survival than women randomized to open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The use of robotically assisted surgical (RAS) devices could possibly create a “shielding layer” between the surgical team and patient reducing the risk of infection, according to Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, FMH, a neurosurgeon with the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Zemmar and colleagues recently published a perspective in Nature Machine Intelligence on trends in the use of surgical robots.

“In the operating theatre, robots can place intravascular lines, intubate the patient and manage the airway. The integration of a robot as a shielding layer, physically separating the health care worker and patient, is a powerful tool to combat the omnipresent fear of pathogen contamination and maintain surgical volumes,” Dr. Zemmar and colleagues wrote.
 

Surgical vs. clinical outcomes

In July 2021, this news organization reported that clinical trials of RAS for nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures were looking primarily at cosmetic or surgical outcomes and were not collecting cancer outcomes and if they were, it was secondary to cosmetic or surgical outcomes.

The FDA followed up by issuing a safety communication in August warning patients and providers that neither the safety nor efficacy of RAS for use in mastectomy procedures or treatment of breast cancer have been established.

“In addition, the FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted using RAS devices to perform mastectomies for the prevention or treatment of cancer without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the communication stated.

Dr. Tewari disclosed relationships with various companies. Dr. Noorchashm had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ahlering disclosed past funding or other considerations from Intuitive Robotics.

The use of robotically assisted surgical devices for benign and malignant tumors is here to stay, but the decision to perform robot-assisted surgery should be driven by clinical outcomes, not convenience, physicians say.

“The problem in minimally invasive surgery, especially in cancer surgery, is that the concept has been flip-flopped,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon turned patient advocate. “The main purpose of surgery should be removal of diseased tissue or repair of damaged tissue with adequate safety. The size of the incision on that triage scheme is secondary.”

In 2013, Dr. Noorchashm’s wife, Amy Reed, MD, an anesthesiologist, had a hysterectomy for treatment of severe uterine fibroids. The surgery was performed with a laparoscopic power morcellator, which led to the dissemination of cells from a previously undetected abdominal lesion. She was later diagnosed with stage 4 leiomyosarcoma and died in May 2017.

Dr. Noorchashm said the problem with robotic surgery isn’t the technology itself or how it’s used, but why it’s used in the first place. “Not only was there an extreme level of laxity with respect to the malignant potential of fibroids, but also that the size of the incision supersedes the safety of the procedure.”

The ultimate goal of oncologic surgery is to achieve an en bloc resection with clean surgical margins and removal of the tumor intact, Dr. Noorchashm said. The only scientific way of showing the benefits or therapeutic equivalence of new technology is through noninferiority comparison trials.
 

Robotic surgery inching toward $14 billion in revenue by 2028

Although robotic surgical technology has been in use since the 1990s, the technology is still considered to be its infancy. The first Food and Drug Administration–approved robotics platform, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) was approved by the FDA in 2000. And, now, with its patent expiring in 2022, competitors will be developing and launching new products for abdominal and colorectal surgery, partial knee replacements, cardiovascular procedures, head and neck surgery, and spinal procedures.

Robotic surgery is a rapidly expanding area with new product launches announced daily. In August 2021, the market research firm Grand View Research, reported the surgical robot marketplace is projected to reach $14 billion by 2028, up from $3.6 billion this year.

“This new era of robotic-assisted surgery attracts both surgeons and patients. Robotic surgery has reshaped our surgeries over the last 2 decades, and robots are now used in almost in every surgical field. Still, as surgeons, we continue to look – with great interest – to new robotic companies that may be able to provide better robots in a more cost-effective manner,” wrote urologists Ahmad Almujalhem and Koon Ho Rha in a review published in the journal BJUI Compass.

However, the authors wrote that, although the market is competitive, cost remains an issue, as are competing interests. In addition, many companies are creating replicas of existing technologies instead of focusing on new designs and new technology. “Although the da Vinci system propelled many robots to market, there has been no significant improvement in the console,” they added.

The technology is attractive to both surgeons and patients. “Surgeons are attracted to newer technologies, better vision, and easier learning curves. Patients are also attracted to robotic surgery, as this technology is considered state of the art and is associated with reduced pain and scar size,” the authors wrote.
 

Outcomes depend on many variables

In terms of outcomes, the literature is mixed. It largely depends on a number of variables from the site of surgery, the type of cancer, technology used, and the surgeon’s skill.

Jung Mogg Kim, MD, PhD, a microbiologist with Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, published a systemic review and meta-analysis of 27 clinical reports in PLoS ONE assessing clinical outcomes. They found that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not result in statistically superior outcomes, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, except for lower estimated blood loss with robots. Operative time and total complications rates were “significantly more favorable” with conventional laparoscopic procedures.

Thomas E. Ahlering, MD, a robotic prostatectomy specialist at the University of California, Irvine, explained that the success or failure of robot-assisted surgery can be highly dependent on the body site and tumor type.

“The oncologic outcome, as long as the surgeon is up to speed, is not going to be better, but the goal is to be as good,” he said in an interview.

In most cases, Dr. Ahlering said, the goal of surgery is to remove a viable tumor with clean margins while leaving the organ intact. But in prostate surgery, the goal is to remove the entire organ while trying to preserve urinary continence and sexual function.

“One of the biggest benefits of the robot is that we’re able to use it in a laparoscopic environment meaning that we need a pneumoperitoneum [which] dramatically decreases bleeding. In prostate cancer, the area is so highly vascular that bleeding is a major issue,” he said.

The same benefits of reduced bleeding, improved visualization, and precision are also seen with robotic-assisted surgery for renal cancer, he noted.

He also emphasized that positive surgical margins, while less desirable than complete elimination of malignant cells, is not nearly as dire in prostate cancer as it is in surgery for other malignancies, such as soft-tissue sarcomas.

“The majority of cases are never going to recur, and if they do recur they essentially never lead to metastatic disease to bone, much less to prostate cancer–related death. The only thing they can do is slightly increase the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] recurrence,” he said.

Assuming that outcomes are comparable between an open procedure, conventional laparoscopic procedure, or robot-assisted approach, surgeons “will almost all go for the robot. It’s easier on the surgeon and it’s easier on the system,” Dr. Ahlering said.

In skilled hands for select patients, the use of a carefully researched and well-designed surgical assistive device can result in outcomes that are comparable with those seen in open surgical procedures, with robot-assisted surgery offering the possibility of less perioperative bleeding, lower postoperative morbidity, and faster recovery times.

“In our program we have been using robots to perform robotic radical prostatectomy and nephron-sparing surgery – partial nephrectomy and we’re also using them to perform intracorporeal bowel reconstruction and robotic radical cystectomy,” said Ashutosh Tewari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Robot-assisted surgery can be used “anywhere where you have to be selective, anywhere where you have to be reconstructive, anywhere where [assisted] vision can help, anywhere where the lack of bleeding will be of help to patients, and anywhere where a smaller incision can achieve the same goals,” Dr. Tewari said in an interview. Dr. Tewari’s Mount Sinai colleagues reported at the 2021 American Urological Association annual meeting, robotic-assisted salvage radical and partial nephrectomies were found to be safe and feasible procedures in patients with metachronous kidney tumors. For patients with early invasive cancer (stage pT1), oncologic outcomes with robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were similar to those of patients who underwent radical surgery. The authors concluded that salvage robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy “can be considered in this group of patients due to the risk of future recurrences and need to preserve renal function.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline for prostate cancer, updated in September 2021, states that “laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are commonly used and are considered comparable to conventional approaches in experienced hands.”

In 2018, researchers in a multinational comparison trial reported that patients with cervical cancer who were randomly assigned to minimally invasive robot-assisted radical hysterectomy had significantly lower rates of both disease-free survival and overall survival than women randomized to open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The use of robotically assisted surgical (RAS) devices could possibly create a “shielding layer” between the surgical team and patient reducing the risk of infection, according to Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, FMH, a neurosurgeon with the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Zemmar and colleagues recently published a perspective in Nature Machine Intelligence on trends in the use of surgical robots.

“In the operating theatre, robots can place intravascular lines, intubate the patient and manage the airway. The integration of a robot as a shielding layer, physically separating the health care worker and patient, is a powerful tool to combat the omnipresent fear of pathogen contamination and maintain surgical volumes,” Dr. Zemmar and colleagues wrote.
 

Surgical vs. clinical outcomes

In July 2021, this news organization reported that clinical trials of RAS for nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures were looking primarily at cosmetic or surgical outcomes and were not collecting cancer outcomes and if they were, it was secondary to cosmetic or surgical outcomes.

The FDA followed up by issuing a safety communication in August warning patients and providers that neither the safety nor efficacy of RAS for use in mastectomy procedures or treatment of breast cancer have been established.

“In addition, the FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted using RAS devices to perform mastectomies for the prevention or treatment of cancer without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the communication stated.

Dr. Tewari disclosed relationships with various companies. Dr. Noorchashm had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ahlering disclosed past funding or other considerations from Intuitive Robotics.

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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