User login
Radiofrequency ablation successful in small thyroid cancers
SEATTLE –
RFA is increasingly gaining favor as a less-invasive alternative to surgery for patients with large, symptomatic, benign thyroid nodules in the United States and elsewhere and for the treatment of thyroid microcarcinomas in other countries, particularly South Korea and China.
Now, new findings from eight patients seen at the Mayo Clinic are the first to be reported for use of RFA for PTMC in the United States, Kharisa Rachmasari, MD, an endocrinology fellow at Mayo, said at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.
Papillary thyroid cancers of 10 mm or less are the most common thyroid cancers, and their incidence is rising. They are commonly discovered incidentally in the setting of increased cross-sectional imaging. These tiny cancers are typically indolent, and they are associated with an excellent prognosis. In the United States, standard management is either surveillance or surgery, whereas RFA has been used in Europe and Asia for more than a decade, Dr. Rachmasari said.
“There has been some hesitancy when it comes to cancer, because there’s no guarantee that we can do it in such a clean way as is done with surgery, where you can actually confirm a negative margin in pathology. And the follow-up is easier as well. With RFA, the PTMC is still there, and you can only follow it with ultrasound, not biochemically with thyroglobulin or certain biomarkers,” she said in an interview.
Nonetheless, for these eight patients who underwent the procedure at Mayo’s ablation clinic, where interventional radiologists team up with endocrinologists, there were no serious adverse events, and no further interventions were required during 24 months of follow-up, she reported.
Asked to comment, session moderator Anupam Kotwal, MD, assistant professor in the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said, “It’s very novel. We talk about balancing the comorbidities that come from treatment of thyroid cancer, but at the same time we want to treat it appropriately ... And of course, there are patient factors. Some may prefer to have the cancer completely out, while others are okay with watching and are against any cuts in their neck. This comes as kind of a middle ground.”
But, Dr. Kotwal added, “[Investigators] definitely need to do a bit more work, especially in the population that may be at higher risk of cancer spread, such as those with a family history of thyroid cancer. We still don’t know how autoimmune disease influences cancer progression.”
He said that if RFA is to be used for PTMC, “I think it has to be done at a center that specializes in multidisciplinary care of thyroid cancers where there are not only the experts in doing the RFA procedure but also surgical expertise, in case a complication does happen, like a vocal cord injury. Or if the cancer is growing, they can expedite getting the person that appropriate treatment.”
An alternative to waiting vs. surgery?
The eight patients were seen at Mayo Clinic between July 2020 and February 2023. All had papillary thyroid carcinoma that was confirmed cytologically via fine-needle biopsy and single lesions without lymph node metastasis. All patients had been offered RFA as an alternative to either surgery or active surveillance.
Seven patients were female, and one was male (mean age, 53 years). All were euthyroid at baseline, and two were receiving thyroid hormone therapy. The mean diameter of their nodules was 9.5 mm, and the mean volume was 0.3 mL.
For the first six patients, the procedure was conducted under general anesthesia; deep sedation was used for the next patient, and moderate sedation was used for the most recent. “As we learn more and gain more experience, patients nowadays have moderate sedation,” she explained.
The active tip size was 10 mm for five patients and 7 mm with three. The radiofrequency power that was delivered ranged from 25 to 45 watts. The median ablation duration was 6 minutes and ranged from 2 to 14.5. “Patients usually stay in the suite about half an hour, so it’s a quick procedure, and the patient can go home on the same day,” Dr. Rachmasari said.
Following the procedure, the ablated area increased in size during the first 3-6 months because the ablation was applied beyond the cancer margins in an attempt to ensure a negative margin, as is done surgically. By 18 months, the ablated area had shrunk and resolved.
All patients remained euthyroid in 18-24 months’ follow-up, none had any cervical adenopathy, and none required subsequent intervention.
No significant adverse events were observed during or after the RFA procedure. A few patients complained of erythema and soreness around the area of the procedure, but this resolved with over-the-counter analgesia.
Longer follow-up will be necessary to detect any recurrence, Dr. Rachmasari noted.
Dr. Kotwal pointed out that lack of reimbursement for RFA has contributed to the slow adoption of RFA overall for the treatment of thyroid nodules in the United States, but added, “I think that will change quickly, especially with more and more data coming out about large benign nodules ... I think at least from the benign nodule standpoint, with discussions happening at national meetings and societies, it should push the payers to cover.”
Overall, he said, “If you have a complication or it affects quality of life, all of those things add to the cost. So if you can use a procedure early on to prevent increasing size of either the big nodule or reduce the size of a big nodule, or even a small cancer, and give that person months or years, even if they ultimately need surgery, I think that’s still a benefit for their quality of life. But again, we have to take patient factors into account.”
Dr. Rachmasari and Dr. Kotwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE –
RFA is increasingly gaining favor as a less-invasive alternative to surgery for patients with large, symptomatic, benign thyroid nodules in the United States and elsewhere and for the treatment of thyroid microcarcinomas in other countries, particularly South Korea and China.
Now, new findings from eight patients seen at the Mayo Clinic are the first to be reported for use of RFA for PTMC in the United States, Kharisa Rachmasari, MD, an endocrinology fellow at Mayo, said at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.
Papillary thyroid cancers of 10 mm or less are the most common thyroid cancers, and their incidence is rising. They are commonly discovered incidentally in the setting of increased cross-sectional imaging. These tiny cancers are typically indolent, and they are associated with an excellent prognosis. In the United States, standard management is either surveillance or surgery, whereas RFA has been used in Europe and Asia for more than a decade, Dr. Rachmasari said.
“There has been some hesitancy when it comes to cancer, because there’s no guarantee that we can do it in such a clean way as is done with surgery, where you can actually confirm a negative margin in pathology. And the follow-up is easier as well. With RFA, the PTMC is still there, and you can only follow it with ultrasound, not biochemically with thyroglobulin or certain biomarkers,” she said in an interview.
Nonetheless, for these eight patients who underwent the procedure at Mayo’s ablation clinic, where interventional radiologists team up with endocrinologists, there were no serious adverse events, and no further interventions were required during 24 months of follow-up, she reported.
Asked to comment, session moderator Anupam Kotwal, MD, assistant professor in the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said, “It’s very novel. We talk about balancing the comorbidities that come from treatment of thyroid cancer, but at the same time we want to treat it appropriately ... And of course, there are patient factors. Some may prefer to have the cancer completely out, while others are okay with watching and are against any cuts in their neck. This comes as kind of a middle ground.”
But, Dr. Kotwal added, “[Investigators] definitely need to do a bit more work, especially in the population that may be at higher risk of cancer spread, such as those with a family history of thyroid cancer. We still don’t know how autoimmune disease influences cancer progression.”
He said that if RFA is to be used for PTMC, “I think it has to be done at a center that specializes in multidisciplinary care of thyroid cancers where there are not only the experts in doing the RFA procedure but also surgical expertise, in case a complication does happen, like a vocal cord injury. Or if the cancer is growing, they can expedite getting the person that appropriate treatment.”
An alternative to waiting vs. surgery?
The eight patients were seen at Mayo Clinic between July 2020 and February 2023. All had papillary thyroid carcinoma that was confirmed cytologically via fine-needle biopsy and single lesions without lymph node metastasis. All patients had been offered RFA as an alternative to either surgery or active surveillance.
Seven patients were female, and one was male (mean age, 53 years). All were euthyroid at baseline, and two were receiving thyroid hormone therapy. The mean diameter of their nodules was 9.5 mm, and the mean volume was 0.3 mL.
For the first six patients, the procedure was conducted under general anesthesia; deep sedation was used for the next patient, and moderate sedation was used for the most recent. “As we learn more and gain more experience, patients nowadays have moderate sedation,” she explained.
The active tip size was 10 mm for five patients and 7 mm with three. The radiofrequency power that was delivered ranged from 25 to 45 watts. The median ablation duration was 6 minutes and ranged from 2 to 14.5. “Patients usually stay in the suite about half an hour, so it’s a quick procedure, and the patient can go home on the same day,” Dr. Rachmasari said.
Following the procedure, the ablated area increased in size during the first 3-6 months because the ablation was applied beyond the cancer margins in an attempt to ensure a negative margin, as is done surgically. By 18 months, the ablated area had shrunk and resolved.
All patients remained euthyroid in 18-24 months’ follow-up, none had any cervical adenopathy, and none required subsequent intervention.
No significant adverse events were observed during or after the RFA procedure. A few patients complained of erythema and soreness around the area of the procedure, but this resolved with over-the-counter analgesia.
Longer follow-up will be necessary to detect any recurrence, Dr. Rachmasari noted.
Dr. Kotwal pointed out that lack of reimbursement for RFA has contributed to the slow adoption of RFA overall for the treatment of thyroid nodules in the United States, but added, “I think that will change quickly, especially with more and more data coming out about large benign nodules ... I think at least from the benign nodule standpoint, with discussions happening at national meetings and societies, it should push the payers to cover.”
Overall, he said, “If you have a complication or it affects quality of life, all of those things add to the cost. So if you can use a procedure early on to prevent increasing size of either the big nodule or reduce the size of a big nodule, or even a small cancer, and give that person months or years, even if they ultimately need surgery, I think that’s still a benefit for their quality of life. But again, we have to take patient factors into account.”
Dr. Rachmasari and Dr. Kotwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE –
RFA is increasingly gaining favor as a less-invasive alternative to surgery for patients with large, symptomatic, benign thyroid nodules in the United States and elsewhere and for the treatment of thyroid microcarcinomas in other countries, particularly South Korea and China.
Now, new findings from eight patients seen at the Mayo Clinic are the first to be reported for use of RFA for PTMC in the United States, Kharisa Rachmasari, MD, an endocrinology fellow at Mayo, said at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.
Papillary thyroid cancers of 10 mm or less are the most common thyroid cancers, and their incidence is rising. They are commonly discovered incidentally in the setting of increased cross-sectional imaging. These tiny cancers are typically indolent, and they are associated with an excellent prognosis. In the United States, standard management is either surveillance or surgery, whereas RFA has been used in Europe and Asia for more than a decade, Dr. Rachmasari said.
“There has been some hesitancy when it comes to cancer, because there’s no guarantee that we can do it in such a clean way as is done with surgery, where you can actually confirm a negative margin in pathology. And the follow-up is easier as well. With RFA, the PTMC is still there, and you can only follow it with ultrasound, not biochemically with thyroglobulin or certain biomarkers,” she said in an interview.
Nonetheless, for these eight patients who underwent the procedure at Mayo’s ablation clinic, where interventional radiologists team up with endocrinologists, there were no serious adverse events, and no further interventions were required during 24 months of follow-up, she reported.
Asked to comment, session moderator Anupam Kotwal, MD, assistant professor in the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said, “It’s very novel. We talk about balancing the comorbidities that come from treatment of thyroid cancer, but at the same time we want to treat it appropriately ... And of course, there are patient factors. Some may prefer to have the cancer completely out, while others are okay with watching and are against any cuts in their neck. This comes as kind of a middle ground.”
But, Dr. Kotwal added, “[Investigators] definitely need to do a bit more work, especially in the population that may be at higher risk of cancer spread, such as those with a family history of thyroid cancer. We still don’t know how autoimmune disease influences cancer progression.”
He said that if RFA is to be used for PTMC, “I think it has to be done at a center that specializes in multidisciplinary care of thyroid cancers where there are not only the experts in doing the RFA procedure but also surgical expertise, in case a complication does happen, like a vocal cord injury. Or if the cancer is growing, they can expedite getting the person that appropriate treatment.”
An alternative to waiting vs. surgery?
The eight patients were seen at Mayo Clinic between July 2020 and February 2023. All had papillary thyroid carcinoma that was confirmed cytologically via fine-needle biopsy and single lesions without lymph node metastasis. All patients had been offered RFA as an alternative to either surgery or active surveillance.
Seven patients were female, and one was male (mean age, 53 years). All were euthyroid at baseline, and two were receiving thyroid hormone therapy. The mean diameter of their nodules was 9.5 mm, and the mean volume was 0.3 mL.
For the first six patients, the procedure was conducted under general anesthesia; deep sedation was used for the next patient, and moderate sedation was used for the most recent. “As we learn more and gain more experience, patients nowadays have moderate sedation,” she explained.
The active tip size was 10 mm for five patients and 7 mm with three. The radiofrequency power that was delivered ranged from 25 to 45 watts. The median ablation duration was 6 minutes and ranged from 2 to 14.5. “Patients usually stay in the suite about half an hour, so it’s a quick procedure, and the patient can go home on the same day,” Dr. Rachmasari said.
Following the procedure, the ablated area increased in size during the first 3-6 months because the ablation was applied beyond the cancer margins in an attempt to ensure a negative margin, as is done surgically. By 18 months, the ablated area had shrunk and resolved.
All patients remained euthyroid in 18-24 months’ follow-up, none had any cervical adenopathy, and none required subsequent intervention.
No significant adverse events were observed during or after the RFA procedure. A few patients complained of erythema and soreness around the area of the procedure, but this resolved with over-the-counter analgesia.
Longer follow-up will be necessary to detect any recurrence, Dr. Rachmasari noted.
Dr. Kotwal pointed out that lack of reimbursement for RFA has contributed to the slow adoption of RFA overall for the treatment of thyroid nodules in the United States, but added, “I think that will change quickly, especially with more and more data coming out about large benign nodules ... I think at least from the benign nodule standpoint, with discussions happening at national meetings and societies, it should push the payers to cover.”
Overall, he said, “If you have a complication or it affects quality of life, all of those things add to the cost. So if you can use a procedure early on to prevent increasing size of either the big nodule or reduce the size of a big nodule, or even a small cancer, and give that person months or years, even if they ultimately need surgery, I think that’s still a benefit for their quality of life. But again, we have to take patient factors into account.”
Dr. Rachmasari and Dr. Kotwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AACE 2023
Study shows higher obesity-related cancer mortality in areas with more fast food
based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.
Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.
In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.
“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.
In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.
Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.
The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).
Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.
A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).
Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.
The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
Community-level investments can benefit individual health
Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.
“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said.
“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.
Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions
The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.
The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.
“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.
Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.
In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.
“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.
In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.
Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.
The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).
Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.
A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).
Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.
The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
Community-level investments can benefit individual health
Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.
“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said.
“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.
Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions
The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.
The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.
“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.
Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.
In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.
“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.
In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.
Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.
The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).
Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.
A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).
Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.
The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
Community-level investments can benefit individual health
Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.
“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said.
“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.
Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions
The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.
The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.
“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Prostate cancer drug shortage leaves some with uncertainty
according to the Food and Drug Administration.
The therapy lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto), approved in March 2022, will remain in limited supply until the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis, can ramp up production of the drug over the next 12 months.
In a letter in February, Novartis said it is giving priority to patients who have already started the regimen so they can “appropriately complete their course of therapy.” The manufacturer will not be taking any orders for new patients over the next 4-6 months, as they work to increase supply.
“We are operating our production site at full capacity to treat as many patients as possible, as quickly as possible,” Novartis said. “However, with a nuclear medicine like Pluvicto, there is no backup supply that we can draw from when we experience a delay.”
Pluvicto is currently made in small batches in the company’s manufacturing facility in Italy. The drug only has a 5-day window to reach its intended patient, after which time it cannot be used. Any disruption in the production or shipping process can create a delay.
Novartis said the facility in Italy is currently operating at full capacity and the company is “working to increase production capacity and supply” of the drug over the next 12 months at two new manufacturing sites in the United States.
The company also encountered supply problems with Pluvicto in 2022 after quality issues were discovered in the manufacturing process.
Currently, patients who are waiting for their first dose of Pluvicto will need to be rescheduled. The manufacturer will be reaching out to health care professionals with options for rescheduling.
Jonathan McConathy, MD, PhD, told The Wall Street Journal that “people will die from this shortage, for sure.”
Dr. McConathy, a radiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who has consulted for Novartis, explained that some patients who would have benefited from the drug likely won’t receive it in time.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the Food and Drug Administration.
The therapy lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto), approved in March 2022, will remain in limited supply until the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis, can ramp up production of the drug over the next 12 months.
In a letter in February, Novartis said it is giving priority to patients who have already started the regimen so they can “appropriately complete their course of therapy.” The manufacturer will not be taking any orders for new patients over the next 4-6 months, as they work to increase supply.
“We are operating our production site at full capacity to treat as many patients as possible, as quickly as possible,” Novartis said. “However, with a nuclear medicine like Pluvicto, there is no backup supply that we can draw from when we experience a delay.”
Pluvicto is currently made in small batches in the company’s manufacturing facility in Italy. The drug only has a 5-day window to reach its intended patient, after which time it cannot be used. Any disruption in the production or shipping process can create a delay.
Novartis said the facility in Italy is currently operating at full capacity and the company is “working to increase production capacity and supply” of the drug over the next 12 months at two new manufacturing sites in the United States.
The company also encountered supply problems with Pluvicto in 2022 after quality issues were discovered in the manufacturing process.
Currently, patients who are waiting for their first dose of Pluvicto will need to be rescheduled. The manufacturer will be reaching out to health care professionals with options for rescheduling.
Jonathan McConathy, MD, PhD, told The Wall Street Journal that “people will die from this shortage, for sure.”
Dr. McConathy, a radiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who has consulted for Novartis, explained that some patients who would have benefited from the drug likely won’t receive it in time.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the Food and Drug Administration.
The therapy lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto), approved in March 2022, will remain in limited supply until the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis, can ramp up production of the drug over the next 12 months.
In a letter in February, Novartis said it is giving priority to patients who have already started the regimen so they can “appropriately complete their course of therapy.” The manufacturer will not be taking any orders for new patients over the next 4-6 months, as they work to increase supply.
“We are operating our production site at full capacity to treat as many patients as possible, as quickly as possible,” Novartis said. “However, with a nuclear medicine like Pluvicto, there is no backup supply that we can draw from when we experience a delay.”
Pluvicto is currently made in small batches in the company’s manufacturing facility in Italy. The drug only has a 5-day window to reach its intended patient, after which time it cannot be used. Any disruption in the production or shipping process can create a delay.
Novartis said the facility in Italy is currently operating at full capacity and the company is “working to increase production capacity and supply” of the drug over the next 12 months at two new manufacturing sites in the United States.
The company also encountered supply problems with Pluvicto in 2022 after quality issues were discovered in the manufacturing process.
Currently, patients who are waiting for their first dose of Pluvicto will need to be rescheduled. The manufacturer will be reaching out to health care professionals with options for rescheduling.
Jonathan McConathy, MD, PhD, told The Wall Street Journal that “people will die from this shortage, for sure.”
Dr. McConathy, a radiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who has consulted for Novartis, explained that some patients who would have benefited from the drug likely won’t receive it in time.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID can mimic prostate cancer symptoms
This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?
That patient was me in late January 2023.
As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.
With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.
To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6.
But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit.
The COVID effect
I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study2 of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.
Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.
That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
COVID-19 pain
What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies3 have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.
To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.
References
1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.
2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.
3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.
Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?
That patient was me in late January 2023.
As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.
With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.
To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6.
But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit.
The COVID effect
I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study2 of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.
Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.
That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
COVID-19 pain
What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies3 have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.
To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.
References
1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.
2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.
3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.
Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?
That patient was me in late January 2023.
As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.
With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.
To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6.
But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit.
The COVID effect
I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study2 of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.
Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.
That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
COVID-19 pain
What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies3 have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.
To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.
References
1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.
2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.
3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.
Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Increased cancer in military pilots and ground crew: Pentagon
“Military aircrew and ground crew were overall more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but less likely to die from cancer compared to the U.S. population,” the report concludes.
The study involved 156,050 aircrew and 737,891 ground crew. Participants were followed between 1992 and 2017. Both groups were predominantly male and non-Hispanic.
Data on cancer incidence and mortality for these two groups were compared with data from groups of similar age in the general population through use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database of the National Cancer Institute.
For aircrew, the study found an 87% higher rate of melanoma, a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 16% higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
A higher rate of melanoma and prostate cancer among aircrew has been reported previously, but the increased rate of thyroid cancer is a new finding, the authors note.
The uptick in melanoma has also been reported in studies of civilian pilots and cabin crew. It has been attributed to exposure to hazardous ultraviolet and cosmic radiation.
For ground crew members, the analysis found a 19% higher rate of cancers of the brain and nervous system, a 15% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 9% higher rate of melanoma and of kidney and renal pelvis cancers, and a 3% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
There is little to compare these findings with: This is the first time that cancer risk has been evaluated in such a large population of military ground crew.
Lower rates of cancer mortality
In contrast to the increase in cancer incidence, the report found a decrease in cancer mortality.
When compared with a demographically similar U.S. population, the mortality rate among aircrew was 56% lower for all cancer sites; for ground crew, the mortality rate was 35% lower.
However, the report authors emphasize that “it is important to note that the military study population was relatively young.”
The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer incidence analysis was 41 years for aircrew and 26 years for ground crew. The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer mortality analysis was 48 years for aircrew and 41 years for ground crew.
“Results may have differed if additional older former Service members had been included in the study, since cancer risk and mortality rates increase with age,” the authors comment.
Other studies have found an increase in deaths from melanoma as well as an increase in the incidence of melanoma. A meta-analysis published in 2019 in the British Journal of Dermatology found that airline pilots and cabin crew have about twice the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers than the general population. Pilots are also more likely to die from melanoma.
Further study underway
The findings on military air and ground crew come from phase 1 of a study that was required by Congress in the 2021 defense bill. Because the investigators found an increase in the incidence of cancer, phase 2 of the study is now necessary.
The report authors explain that phase 2 will consist of identifying the carcinogenic toxicants or hazardous materials associated with military flight operations; identifying operating environments that could be associated with increased amounts of ionizing and nonionizing radiation; identifying specific duties, dates of service, and types of aircraft flown that could have increased the risk for cancer; identifying duty locations associated with a higher incidence of cancers; identifying potential exposures through military service that are not related to aviation; and determining the appropriate age to begin screening military aircrew and ground crew for cancers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Military aircrew and ground crew were overall more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but less likely to die from cancer compared to the U.S. population,” the report concludes.
The study involved 156,050 aircrew and 737,891 ground crew. Participants were followed between 1992 and 2017. Both groups were predominantly male and non-Hispanic.
Data on cancer incidence and mortality for these two groups were compared with data from groups of similar age in the general population through use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database of the National Cancer Institute.
For aircrew, the study found an 87% higher rate of melanoma, a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 16% higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
A higher rate of melanoma and prostate cancer among aircrew has been reported previously, but the increased rate of thyroid cancer is a new finding, the authors note.
The uptick in melanoma has also been reported in studies of civilian pilots and cabin crew. It has been attributed to exposure to hazardous ultraviolet and cosmic radiation.
For ground crew members, the analysis found a 19% higher rate of cancers of the brain and nervous system, a 15% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 9% higher rate of melanoma and of kidney and renal pelvis cancers, and a 3% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
There is little to compare these findings with: This is the first time that cancer risk has been evaluated in such a large population of military ground crew.
Lower rates of cancer mortality
In contrast to the increase in cancer incidence, the report found a decrease in cancer mortality.
When compared with a demographically similar U.S. population, the mortality rate among aircrew was 56% lower for all cancer sites; for ground crew, the mortality rate was 35% lower.
However, the report authors emphasize that “it is important to note that the military study population was relatively young.”
The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer incidence analysis was 41 years for aircrew and 26 years for ground crew. The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer mortality analysis was 48 years for aircrew and 41 years for ground crew.
“Results may have differed if additional older former Service members had been included in the study, since cancer risk and mortality rates increase with age,” the authors comment.
Other studies have found an increase in deaths from melanoma as well as an increase in the incidence of melanoma. A meta-analysis published in 2019 in the British Journal of Dermatology found that airline pilots and cabin crew have about twice the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers than the general population. Pilots are also more likely to die from melanoma.
Further study underway
The findings on military air and ground crew come from phase 1 of a study that was required by Congress in the 2021 defense bill. Because the investigators found an increase in the incidence of cancer, phase 2 of the study is now necessary.
The report authors explain that phase 2 will consist of identifying the carcinogenic toxicants or hazardous materials associated with military flight operations; identifying operating environments that could be associated with increased amounts of ionizing and nonionizing radiation; identifying specific duties, dates of service, and types of aircraft flown that could have increased the risk for cancer; identifying duty locations associated with a higher incidence of cancers; identifying potential exposures through military service that are not related to aviation; and determining the appropriate age to begin screening military aircrew and ground crew for cancers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Military aircrew and ground crew were overall more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but less likely to die from cancer compared to the U.S. population,” the report concludes.
The study involved 156,050 aircrew and 737,891 ground crew. Participants were followed between 1992 and 2017. Both groups were predominantly male and non-Hispanic.
Data on cancer incidence and mortality for these two groups were compared with data from groups of similar age in the general population through use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database of the National Cancer Institute.
For aircrew, the study found an 87% higher rate of melanoma, a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 16% higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
A higher rate of melanoma and prostate cancer among aircrew has been reported previously, but the increased rate of thyroid cancer is a new finding, the authors note.
The uptick in melanoma has also been reported in studies of civilian pilots and cabin crew. It has been attributed to exposure to hazardous ultraviolet and cosmic radiation.
For ground crew members, the analysis found a 19% higher rate of cancers of the brain and nervous system, a 15% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 9% higher rate of melanoma and of kidney and renal pelvis cancers, and a 3% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
There is little to compare these findings with: This is the first time that cancer risk has been evaluated in such a large population of military ground crew.
Lower rates of cancer mortality
In contrast to the increase in cancer incidence, the report found a decrease in cancer mortality.
When compared with a demographically similar U.S. population, the mortality rate among aircrew was 56% lower for all cancer sites; for ground crew, the mortality rate was 35% lower.
However, the report authors emphasize that “it is important to note that the military study population was relatively young.”
The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer incidence analysis was 41 years for aircrew and 26 years for ground crew. The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer mortality analysis was 48 years for aircrew and 41 years for ground crew.
“Results may have differed if additional older former Service members had been included in the study, since cancer risk and mortality rates increase with age,” the authors comment.
Other studies have found an increase in deaths from melanoma as well as an increase in the incidence of melanoma. A meta-analysis published in 2019 in the British Journal of Dermatology found that airline pilots and cabin crew have about twice the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers than the general population. Pilots are also more likely to die from melanoma.
Further study underway
The findings on military air and ground crew come from phase 1 of a study that was required by Congress in the 2021 defense bill. Because the investigators found an increase in the incidence of cancer, phase 2 of the study is now necessary.
The report authors explain that phase 2 will consist of identifying the carcinogenic toxicants or hazardous materials associated with military flight operations; identifying operating environments that could be associated with increased amounts of ionizing and nonionizing radiation; identifying specific duties, dates of service, and types of aircraft flown that could have increased the risk for cancer; identifying duty locations associated with a higher incidence of cancers; identifying potential exposures through military service that are not related to aviation; and determining the appropriate age to begin screening military aircrew and ground crew for cancers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Taking a break from TKIs unlikely to shorten survival
That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).
The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).
“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.
Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”
As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).
Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.
Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.
“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
Study details
The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.
They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.
All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.
Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.
In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.
The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.
Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”
Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”
To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.
Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”
Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”
Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.”
The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.
The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
Changes in treatment strategies
The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.
Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”
In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.
Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.
Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”
Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”
The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).
The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).
“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.
Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”
As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).
Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.
Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.
“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
Study details
The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.
They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.
All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.
Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.
In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.
The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.
Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”
Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”
To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.
Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”
Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”
Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.”
The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.
The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
Changes in treatment strategies
The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.
Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”
In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.
Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.
Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”
Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”
The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).
The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).
“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.
Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”
As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).
Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.
Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.
“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
Study details
The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.
They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.
All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.
Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.
In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.
The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.
Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”
Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”
To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.
Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”
Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”
Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.”
The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.
The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
Changes in treatment strategies
The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.
Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”
In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.
Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.
Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”
Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”
The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
Who’s at higher risk for breast cancer recurrence?
New research shows that patients with ER-negative disease have a higher risk of a second breast cancer within a 5-year window post diagnosis, compared with patients with ER-positive disease.
“Our findings suggest that primary breast cancer ER status could be used to identify women at highest risk of second breast cancer events during the early post-treatment period and should be a consideration for guidelines and decision-making regarding surveillance imaging regimens for breast cancer survivors,” the study authors, led by Kathryn P. Lowry, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, concluded.
The study was published online in Cancer.
Breast cancer survivors are at risk for a second breast cancer, making ongoing surveillance essential. Surveillance could be informed by better understanding an individual’s recurrence risk, but whether differences exist for women with ER‐positive vs. ER‐negative cancers remains unclear.
Dr. Lowry and colleagues analyzed women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawing from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. The team collected information on patients’ ER status as well as second breast cancer events detectable by surveillance imaging. Second breast cancer rates were assessed 1-5 years and 6-10 years after diagnosis. The final study cohort included 23,139 women with ER-positive disease and 4,605 with ER-negative disease.
The researchers found that, at the 5-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was 7.1% for ER‐negative disease and 3.6% for ER‐positive disease. At the 10-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was still higher for women with ER-negative disease – 11.8% vs. 7.5% among those with ER-positive disease.
Patients with ER-negative disease also had higher rates of second breast cancers within the first 5 years of follow-ups – 16.0 per 1,000 person‐years vs. 7.8 per 1,000 person‐years for those with ER‐positive breast cancer – though after 5 years, the rates by ER status were similar among the two groups (12.1 per 1,000 vs. 9.3 per 1,000 person‐years, respectively).
Overall, the findings indicate that the “ER status of the primary invasive cancer was an important prognostic factor for both the magnitude and the timing of second breast cancer events,” the authors concluded.
The team noted several limitations to their study, including that information on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, were not available. Given that these variants tend to be more common among women with ER-negative breast cancers, this could represent a confounder.
Marisa C. Weiss, MD, chief medical officer and founder of Breastcancer.org, who was not involved in the research, highlighted two important details to keep in mind.
“We do know that triple negative breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of having an inherited genetic abnormality like BRCA1, which predicts a higher risk of second malignancies,” said Dr. Weiss, a breast oncologist at Lankenau Medical Center in Wynnewood, Pa. “Also, it should be noted that patients with HR-positive breast cancer have a higher incidence of local recurrence spread out over 10-plus years.”
What might these results mean for practice and following patients over the long term?
According to the researchers, “further study is needed to evaluate whether women with ER‐negative primary cancers may potentially benefit from more intensive surveillance in the early postdiagnosis period.”
Dr. Weiss noted as well that “each person’s situation is unique,” and it is “very important to develop a customized survivorship care plan with close surveillance,” which includes genetic testing.
Dr. Lowry reported grants from the American Cancer Society and personal fees from the Radiological Society of North America outside the submitted work. Several coauthors also reported disclosures. Dr. Weiss reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research shows that patients with ER-negative disease have a higher risk of a second breast cancer within a 5-year window post diagnosis, compared with patients with ER-positive disease.
“Our findings suggest that primary breast cancer ER status could be used to identify women at highest risk of second breast cancer events during the early post-treatment period and should be a consideration for guidelines and decision-making regarding surveillance imaging regimens for breast cancer survivors,” the study authors, led by Kathryn P. Lowry, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, concluded.
The study was published online in Cancer.
Breast cancer survivors are at risk for a second breast cancer, making ongoing surveillance essential. Surveillance could be informed by better understanding an individual’s recurrence risk, but whether differences exist for women with ER‐positive vs. ER‐negative cancers remains unclear.
Dr. Lowry and colleagues analyzed women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawing from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. The team collected information on patients’ ER status as well as second breast cancer events detectable by surveillance imaging. Second breast cancer rates were assessed 1-5 years and 6-10 years after diagnosis. The final study cohort included 23,139 women with ER-positive disease and 4,605 with ER-negative disease.
The researchers found that, at the 5-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was 7.1% for ER‐negative disease and 3.6% for ER‐positive disease. At the 10-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was still higher for women with ER-negative disease – 11.8% vs. 7.5% among those with ER-positive disease.
Patients with ER-negative disease also had higher rates of second breast cancers within the first 5 years of follow-ups – 16.0 per 1,000 person‐years vs. 7.8 per 1,000 person‐years for those with ER‐positive breast cancer – though after 5 years, the rates by ER status were similar among the two groups (12.1 per 1,000 vs. 9.3 per 1,000 person‐years, respectively).
Overall, the findings indicate that the “ER status of the primary invasive cancer was an important prognostic factor for both the magnitude and the timing of second breast cancer events,” the authors concluded.
The team noted several limitations to their study, including that information on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, were not available. Given that these variants tend to be more common among women with ER-negative breast cancers, this could represent a confounder.
Marisa C. Weiss, MD, chief medical officer and founder of Breastcancer.org, who was not involved in the research, highlighted two important details to keep in mind.
“We do know that triple negative breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of having an inherited genetic abnormality like BRCA1, which predicts a higher risk of second malignancies,” said Dr. Weiss, a breast oncologist at Lankenau Medical Center in Wynnewood, Pa. “Also, it should be noted that patients with HR-positive breast cancer have a higher incidence of local recurrence spread out over 10-plus years.”
What might these results mean for practice and following patients over the long term?
According to the researchers, “further study is needed to evaluate whether women with ER‐negative primary cancers may potentially benefit from more intensive surveillance in the early postdiagnosis period.”
Dr. Weiss noted as well that “each person’s situation is unique,” and it is “very important to develop a customized survivorship care plan with close surveillance,” which includes genetic testing.
Dr. Lowry reported grants from the American Cancer Society and personal fees from the Radiological Society of North America outside the submitted work. Several coauthors also reported disclosures. Dr. Weiss reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research shows that patients with ER-negative disease have a higher risk of a second breast cancer within a 5-year window post diagnosis, compared with patients with ER-positive disease.
“Our findings suggest that primary breast cancer ER status could be used to identify women at highest risk of second breast cancer events during the early post-treatment period and should be a consideration for guidelines and decision-making regarding surveillance imaging regimens for breast cancer survivors,” the study authors, led by Kathryn P. Lowry, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, concluded.
The study was published online in Cancer.
Breast cancer survivors are at risk for a second breast cancer, making ongoing surveillance essential. Surveillance could be informed by better understanding an individual’s recurrence risk, but whether differences exist for women with ER‐positive vs. ER‐negative cancers remains unclear.
Dr. Lowry and colleagues analyzed women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawing from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. The team collected information on patients’ ER status as well as second breast cancer events detectable by surveillance imaging. Second breast cancer rates were assessed 1-5 years and 6-10 years after diagnosis. The final study cohort included 23,139 women with ER-positive disease and 4,605 with ER-negative disease.
The researchers found that, at the 5-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was 7.1% for ER‐negative disease and 3.6% for ER‐positive disease. At the 10-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was still higher for women with ER-negative disease – 11.8% vs. 7.5% among those with ER-positive disease.
Patients with ER-negative disease also had higher rates of second breast cancers within the first 5 years of follow-ups – 16.0 per 1,000 person‐years vs. 7.8 per 1,000 person‐years for those with ER‐positive breast cancer – though after 5 years, the rates by ER status were similar among the two groups (12.1 per 1,000 vs. 9.3 per 1,000 person‐years, respectively).
Overall, the findings indicate that the “ER status of the primary invasive cancer was an important prognostic factor for both the magnitude and the timing of second breast cancer events,” the authors concluded.
The team noted several limitations to their study, including that information on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, were not available. Given that these variants tend to be more common among women with ER-negative breast cancers, this could represent a confounder.
Marisa C. Weiss, MD, chief medical officer and founder of Breastcancer.org, who was not involved in the research, highlighted two important details to keep in mind.
“We do know that triple negative breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of having an inherited genetic abnormality like BRCA1, which predicts a higher risk of second malignancies,” said Dr. Weiss, a breast oncologist at Lankenau Medical Center in Wynnewood, Pa. “Also, it should be noted that patients with HR-positive breast cancer have a higher incidence of local recurrence spread out over 10-plus years.”
What might these results mean for practice and following patients over the long term?
According to the researchers, “further study is needed to evaluate whether women with ER‐negative primary cancers may potentially benefit from more intensive surveillance in the early postdiagnosis period.”
Dr. Weiss noted as well that “each person’s situation is unique,” and it is “very important to develop a customized survivorship care plan with close surveillance,” which includes genetic testing.
Dr. Lowry reported grants from the American Cancer Society and personal fees from the Radiological Society of North America outside the submitted work. Several coauthors also reported disclosures. Dr. Weiss reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANCER
Rucaparib benefit in BRCA+ prostate cancer confirmed
The finding, which comes from the TRITON3 clinical trial, provides evidence of clinical benefit for an indication for rucaparib that was granted an accelerated approval in May 2020.
“Rucaparib reduced the risk of progression or death by half in patients with BRCA alterations,” said lead author Alan H. Bryce, MD, medical director of the Genomic Oncology Clinic at Mayo Clinic Arizona, in Phoenix.
For the subgroup of patients with BRCA alterations, the median PFS was 11.2 months with rucaparib vs. 6.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.50; P < .001) among those who received physician’s choice of therapy, which included docetaxel or a second-generation ARPI, such as abiraterone or enzalutamide.
In another subgroup of patients whose disease had ATM alterations, the median PFS was 8.1 months with rucaparib vs. 6.8 months with physician’s choice of drug. The difference was not statistically significant.
However, the difference was significant in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (comprising both subgroups), for whom the median PFS was 10.2 months with rucaparib vs. 6.4 months with physician’s choice of drug (HR, 0.61; P < .001 by log-rank test).
Dr. Bryce pointed out that three-quarters of the patients in the physician’s-choice arm who had progressive disease crossed over to rucaparib upon progression and that overall survival (OS) results are immature. At 62 months, median OS did not significantly differ in the BRCA subgroup (24.3 vs. 20.8 months favoring rucaparib; P = .21) or in the ITT group (23.6 vs. 20.9 months; P = .67).
Importantly, rucaparib was well tolerated. In all treatment groups, the most frequent adverse events were asthenia and fatigue, Bryce said. “There were no cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia reported.”
These results from the TRITON3 trial were presented at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium and were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Suggested benefit
Rucaparib is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with mCRPC that harbors deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic) who have already been treated with androgen receptor–directed therapy and a taxane-based chemotherapy. This prostate cancer indication was granted an accelerated approval in May 2020 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the basis of response rates and effect on levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the TRITON2 clinical trial, the forerunner of the current study.
The TRITON2 study was a single-arm clinical trial that involved three cohorts: 62 patients with a BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable disease; 115 patients with a BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease; and 209 patients with homologous recombination deficiency–positive mCRPC.
In an analysis of 115 patients with a deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease, the confirmed PSA response rate was 55%. For the patients with measurable disease and a BRCA mutation, the objective response rate was 44%. The objective response rate was similar for those with a germline BRCA mutation.
Study details
The current phase 3 randomized TRITON3 clinical trial was conducted to confirm the earlier findings and to expand upon the data in mCRPC. The participants in this trial were patients with mCRPC who had specific gene alterations, including BRCA and ATM alterations, who had experienced disease progression after androgen receptor–directed therapy but who had not yet received chemotherapy.
A total of 270 men were assigned to receive rucaparib (600 mg twice daily); 135 patients received their physician’s choice of medication. Within the two study arms, 302 patients had a BRCA alteration, and 103 patients had an ATM alteration. The ITT population consisted of all the patients who had been randomly assigned to either of the two groups. A prespecified subgroup included patients with a BRCA alteration.
The primary outcome was the median duration of imaging-based PSF, as determined through independent review. Key secondary outcomes were overall survival and objective response rate.
The most common adverse events in the rucaparib group were fatigue, nausea, and anemia or decreased hemoglobin. In the control group, the most common adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, and neuropathy. The most common events of grade 3 or higher were anemia or decreased hemoglobin, neutropenia or a decreased neutrophil count, and fatigue in the rucaparib group, and fatigue and neutropenia or a decreased neutrophil count among control patients.
No changes in standard of care
In a discussion of the study, Elena Castro, MD, PhD, of the Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga, Campanillas, Spain, emphasized that there is a clear benefit from the use of PARP inhibitors (such as rucaparib) for patients with BRCA alterations.
However, she highlighted the absence of convincing overall survival data and the absence of a clear benefit on PFS in the subgroup of patients with ATM alterations.
“These data raise several questions,” she noted, “such as, do patients with ATM alterations benefit at all? And should PARP inhibitors [such as rucaparib] precede or follow docetaxel therapy?”
Because of the high crossover rate, it may be possible to evaluate the directionality of docetaxel followed by PARP inhibitors and the other way around, she suggested.
Dr. Castro said that patients with BRCA alterations benefit from PARP inhibitors and are likely to derive more benefit from them than from taxanes.
“But those with ATM alterations are unlikely to benefit from rucaparib more than from taxanes,” she said.
In a comment, Hank Ng, MD, medical oncologist, NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, said he is not convinced that the findings from TRITON 3 represent a new standard of care in BRCA 1/2 mutations or ATM.
“Currently, we know that, for patients with prostate cancer with BRCA1/2 or ATM, the standard of care is an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI), such as abiraterone or enzalutamide, then docetaxel, and then a PARP inhibitor like rucaparib,” he said.
(Currently, rucaparib is indicated for use in patients with mCRPC with BRCA alterations after they have already received an ARPI and taxane-based chemotherapy.)
Dr. Ng also questioned the control arm of the TRITON 3 trial. All the participants in the trial had already experienced disease progression after treatment with a second-generation ARPI. But the physician’s choice of therapy allowed them to move on to another ARPI or to docetaxel.
Dr. NG commented that, “in almost all cases, after progression of one ARPI, switching to another ARPI does not provide much benefit – from what is visible from this abstract – and only 56% patients received docetaxel, and thus 44% received a not-beneficial treatment,” he said.
“I am not sure what the docetaxel subgroup showed, but potentially, if those numbers are convincing, we could move this [rucaparib] ahead of docetaxel,” he speculated.
However, he also pointed out that an overall survival benefit has not yet been shown; so far, the benefit that has been shown is with respect to imaging-based PFS.
Dr. Ng does agree that rucaparib is indicated in the second line after progression with one ARPI for patients who are not candidates for chemotherapy. “But this has not yet shown me that we should absolutely be offering rucaparib before docetaxel,” he said.
TRITON3 was supported by Clovis Oncology, manufacturer of rucaparib. Dr. Bryce has relationships with Bayer, Foundation Medicine, Janssen, Merck, Myovant Sciences, and Novartis and holds a patent for therapeutic targeting of cancer patients with NRG1 rearrangements. Dr. Castro has relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The finding, which comes from the TRITON3 clinical trial, provides evidence of clinical benefit for an indication for rucaparib that was granted an accelerated approval in May 2020.
“Rucaparib reduced the risk of progression or death by half in patients with BRCA alterations,” said lead author Alan H. Bryce, MD, medical director of the Genomic Oncology Clinic at Mayo Clinic Arizona, in Phoenix.
For the subgroup of patients with BRCA alterations, the median PFS was 11.2 months with rucaparib vs. 6.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.50; P < .001) among those who received physician’s choice of therapy, which included docetaxel or a second-generation ARPI, such as abiraterone or enzalutamide.
In another subgroup of patients whose disease had ATM alterations, the median PFS was 8.1 months with rucaparib vs. 6.8 months with physician’s choice of drug. The difference was not statistically significant.
However, the difference was significant in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (comprising both subgroups), for whom the median PFS was 10.2 months with rucaparib vs. 6.4 months with physician’s choice of drug (HR, 0.61; P < .001 by log-rank test).
Dr. Bryce pointed out that three-quarters of the patients in the physician’s-choice arm who had progressive disease crossed over to rucaparib upon progression and that overall survival (OS) results are immature. At 62 months, median OS did not significantly differ in the BRCA subgroup (24.3 vs. 20.8 months favoring rucaparib; P = .21) or in the ITT group (23.6 vs. 20.9 months; P = .67).
Importantly, rucaparib was well tolerated. In all treatment groups, the most frequent adverse events were asthenia and fatigue, Bryce said. “There were no cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia reported.”
These results from the TRITON3 trial were presented at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium and were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Suggested benefit
Rucaparib is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with mCRPC that harbors deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic) who have already been treated with androgen receptor–directed therapy and a taxane-based chemotherapy. This prostate cancer indication was granted an accelerated approval in May 2020 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the basis of response rates and effect on levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the TRITON2 clinical trial, the forerunner of the current study.
The TRITON2 study was a single-arm clinical trial that involved three cohorts: 62 patients with a BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable disease; 115 patients with a BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease; and 209 patients with homologous recombination deficiency–positive mCRPC.
In an analysis of 115 patients with a deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease, the confirmed PSA response rate was 55%. For the patients with measurable disease and a BRCA mutation, the objective response rate was 44%. The objective response rate was similar for those with a germline BRCA mutation.
Study details
The current phase 3 randomized TRITON3 clinical trial was conducted to confirm the earlier findings and to expand upon the data in mCRPC. The participants in this trial were patients with mCRPC who had specific gene alterations, including BRCA and ATM alterations, who had experienced disease progression after androgen receptor–directed therapy but who had not yet received chemotherapy.
A total of 270 men were assigned to receive rucaparib (600 mg twice daily); 135 patients received their physician’s choice of medication. Within the two study arms, 302 patients had a BRCA alteration, and 103 patients had an ATM alteration. The ITT population consisted of all the patients who had been randomly assigned to either of the two groups. A prespecified subgroup included patients with a BRCA alteration.
The primary outcome was the median duration of imaging-based PSF, as determined through independent review. Key secondary outcomes were overall survival and objective response rate.
The most common adverse events in the rucaparib group were fatigue, nausea, and anemia or decreased hemoglobin. In the control group, the most common adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, and neuropathy. The most common events of grade 3 or higher were anemia or decreased hemoglobin, neutropenia or a decreased neutrophil count, and fatigue in the rucaparib group, and fatigue and neutropenia or a decreased neutrophil count among control patients.
No changes in standard of care
In a discussion of the study, Elena Castro, MD, PhD, of the Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga, Campanillas, Spain, emphasized that there is a clear benefit from the use of PARP inhibitors (such as rucaparib) for patients with BRCA alterations.
However, she highlighted the absence of convincing overall survival data and the absence of a clear benefit on PFS in the subgroup of patients with ATM alterations.
“These data raise several questions,” she noted, “such as, do patients with ATM alterations benefit at all? And should PARP inhibitors [such as rucaparib] precede or follow docetaxel therapy?”
Because of the high crossover rate, it may be possible to evaluate the directionality of docetaxel followed by PARP inhibitors and the other way around, she suggested.
Dr. Castro said that patients with BRCA alterations benefit from PARP inhibitors and are likely to derive more benefit from them than from taxanes.
“But those with ATM alterations are unlikely to benefit from rucaparib more than from taxanes,” she said.
In a comment, Hank Ng, MD, medical oncologist, NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, said he is not convinced that the findings from TRITON 3 represent a new standard of care in BRCA 1/2 mutations or ATM.
“Currently, we know that, for patients with prostate cancer with BRCA1/2 or ATM, the standard of care is an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI), such as abiraterone or enzalutamide, then docetaxel, and then a PARP inhibitor like rucaparib,” he said.
(Currently, rucaparib is indicated for use in patients with mCRPC with BRCA alterations after they have already received an ARPI and taxane-based chemotherapy.)
Dr. Ng also questioned the control arm of the TRITON 3 trial. All the participants in the trial had already experienced disease progression after treatment with a second-generation ARPI. But the physician’s choice of therapy allowed them to move on to another ARPI or to docetaxel.
Dr. NG commented that, “in almost all cases, after progression of one ARPI, switching to another ARPI does not provide much benefit – from what is visible from this abstract – and only 56% patients received docetaxel, and thus 44% received a not-beneficial treatment,” he said.
“I am not sure what the docetaxel subgroup showed, but potentially, if those numbers are convincing, we could move this [rucaparib] ahead of docetaxel,” he speculated.
However, he also pointed out that an overall survival benefit has not yet been shown; so far, the benefit that has been shown is with respect to imaging-based PFS.
Dr. Ng does agree that rucaparib is indicated in the second line after progression with one ARPI for patients who are not candidates for chemotherapy. “But this has not yet shown me that we should absolutely be offering rucaparib before docetaxel,” he said.
TRITON3 was supported by Clovis Oncology, manufacturer of rucaparib. Dr. Bryce has relationships with Bayer, Foundation Medicine, Janssen, Merck, Myovant Sciences, and Novartis and holds a patent for therapeutic targeting of cancer patients with NRG1 rearrangements. Dr. Castro has relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The finding, which comes from the TRITON3 clinical trial, provides evidence of clinical benefit for an indication for rucaparib that was granted an accelerated approval in May 2020.
“Rucaparib reduced the risk of progression or death by half in patients with BRCA alterations,” said lead author Alan H. Bryce, MD, medical director of the Genomic Oncology Clinic at Mayo Clinic Arizona, in Phoenix.
For the subgroup of patients with BRCA alterations, the median PFS was 11.2 months with rucaparib vs. 6.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.50; P < .001) among those who received physician’s choice of therapy, which included docetaxel or a second-generation ARPI, such as abiraterone or enzalutamide.
In another subgroup of patients whose disease had ATM alterations, the median PFS was 8.1 months with rucaparib vs. 6.8 months with physician’s choice of drug. The difference was not statistically significant.
However, the difference was significant in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (comprising both subgroups), for whom the median PFS was 10.2 months with rucaparib vs. 6.4 months with physician’s choice of drug (HR, 0.61; P < .001 by log-rank test).
Dr. Bryce pointed out that three-quarters of the patients in the physician’s-choice arm who had progressive disease crossed over to rucaparib upon progression and that overall survival (OS) results are immature. At 62 months, median OS did not significantly differ in the BRCA subgroup (24.3 vs. 20.8 months favoring rucaparib; P = .21) or in the ITT group (23.6 vs. 20.9 months; P = .67).
Importantly, rucaparib was well tolerated. In all treatment groups, the most frequent adverse events were asthenia and fatigue, Bryce said. “There were no cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia reported.”
These results from the TRITON3 trial were presented at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium and were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Suggested benefit
Rucaparib is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with mCRPC that harbors deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic) who have already been treated with androgen receptor–directed therapy and a taxane-based chemotherapy. This prostate cancer indication was granted an accelerated approval in May 2020 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the basis of response rates and effect on levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the TRITON2 clinical trial, the forerunner of the current study.
The TRITON2 study was a single-arm clinical trial that involved three cohorts: 62 patients with a BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable disease; 115 patients with a BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease; and 209 patients with homologous recombination deficiency–positive mCRPC.
In an analysis of 115 patients with a deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease, the confirmed PSA response rate was 55%. For the patients with measurable disease and a BRCA mutation, the objective response rate was 44%. The objective response rate was similar for those with a germline BRCA mutation.
Study details
The current phase 3 randomized TRITON3 clinical trial was conducted to confirm the earlier findings and to expand upon the data in mCRPC. The participants in this trial were patients with mCRPC who had specific gene alterations, including BRCA and ATM alterations, who had experienced disease progression after androgen receptor–directed therapy but who had not yet received chemotherapy.
A total of 270 men were assigned to receive rucaparib (600 mg twice daily); 135 patients received their physician’s choice of medication. Within the two study arms, 302 patients had a BRCA alteration, and 103 patients had an ATM alteration. The ITT population consisted of all the patients who had been randomly assigned to either of the two groups. A prespecified subgroup included patients with a BRCA alteration.
The primary outcome was the median duration of imaging-based PSF, as determined through independent review. Key secondary outcomes were overall survival and objective response rate.
The most common adverse events in the rucaparib group were fatigue, nausea, and anemia or decreased hemoglobin. In the control group, the most common adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, and neuropathy. The most common events of grade 3 or higher were anemia or decreased hemoglobin, neutropenia or a decreased neutrophil count, and fatigue in the rucaparib group, and fatigue and neutropenia or a decreased neutrophil count among control patients.
No changes in standard of care
In a discussion of the study, Elena Castro, MD, PhD, of the Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga, Campanillas, Spain, emphasized that there is a clear benefit from the use of PARP inhibitors (such as rucaparib) for patients with BRCA alterations.
However, she highlighted the absence of convincing overall survival data and the absence of a clear benefit on PFS in the subgroup of patients with ATM alterations.
“These data raise several questions,” she noted, “such as, do patients with ATM alterations benefit at all? And should PARP inhibitors [such as rucaparib] precede or follow docetaxel therapy?”
Because of the high crossover rate, it may be possible to evaluate the directionality of docetaxel followed by PARP inhibitors and the other way around, she suggested.
Dr. Castro said that patients with BRCA alterations benefit from PARP inhibitors and are likely to derive more benefit from them than from taxanes.
“But those with ATM alterations are unlikely to benefit from rucaparib more than from taxanes,” she said.
In a comment, Hank Ng, MD, medical oncologist, NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, said he is not convinced that the findings from TRITON 3 represent a new standard of care in BRCA 1/2 mutations or ATM.
“Currently, we know that, for patients with prostate cancer with BRCA1/2 or ATM, the standard of care is an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI), such as abiraterone or enzalutamide, then docetaxel, and then a PARP inhibitor like rucaparib,” he said.
(Currently, rucaparib is indicated for use in patients with mCRPC with BRCA alterations after they have already received an ARPI and taxane-based chemotherapy.)
Dr. Ng also questioned the control arm of the TRITON 3 trial. All the participants in the trial had already experienced disease progression after treatment with a second-generation ARPI. But the physician’s choice of therapy allowed them to move on to another ARPI or to docetaxel.
Dr. NG commented that, “in almost all cases, after progression of one ARPI, switching to another ARPI does not provide much benefit – from what is visible from this abstract – and only 56% patients received docetaxel, and thus 44% received a not-beneficial treatment,” he said.
“I am not sure what the docetaxel subgroup showed, but potentially, if those numbers are convincing, we could move this [rucaparib] ahead of docetaxel,” he speculated.
However, he also pointed out that an overall survival benefit has not yet been shown; so far, the benefit that has been shown is with respect to imaging-based PFS.
Dr. Ng does agree that rucaparib is indicated in the second line after progression with one ARPI for patients who are not candidates for chemotherapy. “But this has not yet shown me that we should absolutely be offering rucaparib before docetaxel,” he said.
TRITON3 was supported by Clovis Oncology, manufacturer of rucaparib. Dr. Bryce has relationships with Bayer, Foundation Medicine, Janssen, Merck, Myovant Sciences, and Novartis and holds a patent for therapeutic targeting of cancer patients with NRG1 rearrangements. Dr. Castro has relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO GU 2023
Genomic clues to poor outcomes in young breast cancer patients
and offer clues about molecular targets for future trials.
Compared with older women with early stage HR-positive breast cancer, women under 40 years of age had significantly higher frequencies of certain mutations, such as GATA3, as well as genomic features associated with a poor prognosis. Notably, the researchers found that women with such poor prognostic features vs. those with none had a significantly worse 8-year distant recurrence-free interval and overall survival.
“We have demonstrated age-related differences in genomic profiles with enrichment of genomic features associated with poor prognosis in these younger premenopausal women compared with older premenopausal and postmenopausal women,” the authors wrote in the study, published in the Annals of Oncology. Importantly, the genomic features highlight “the potential for age-focused treatment strategies.”
Charis Eng, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Genomic Medicine Institute, Ohio, noted that the findings are promising but need further validation.
“With time and the appropriate clinical trials in place, I envision that these findings will enable the personalized genomics-driven management of these cancers – not only treatment, but also toward prevention,” said Dr. Eng, who was not involved in the study.
Young premenopausal women, particularly those with HR-positive, luminal breast cancer, are known to have significantly higher recurrence rates and worse survival, compared with older women, but the reasons have remained unclear.
Although previous studies have identified key gene expression signatures linked to worse outcomes in younger patients with breast cancer, there are limited data on this younger patient population, especially by breast cancer subtype. Given that breast cancer treatment strategies are often similar across age groups, such evidence gaps could represent missed opportunities for developing more targeted treatment strategies for this high-risk population of young women.
To further investigate the cancer-specific genetic profiles in younger women, Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, and colleagues turned to data from the pivotal, multicenter Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT).
Using next-generation sequencing, Dr. Loi and colleagues evaluated HR-positive, HER2-negative tumors among a subset of 1,276 premenopausal women who were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer. The study employed deep-targeted sequencing for most patients (n = 1,258) as well as whole-exome sequencing in a matched case-control subsample of young women with a median age of 38 years (n = 82).
Compared with women aged 40 and older, those under 40 years of age (n = 359) had significantly higher frequencies of mutations in GATA3 (19% vs. 16%) and copy number-amplifications (47% vs. 26%).
Younger women also had significantly higher features suggestive of homologous recombination deficiency (27% vs. 21% in older women), and a higher proportion of PIK3CA mutations with concurrent copy number-amplifications (23% vs. 11%, respectively), all considered to be poor prognostic features.
In addition, younger women had significantly lower frequencies of certain mutations, including PIK3CA (32% vs. 47%), CDH1 (3% vs. 9%), and MAP3K1 (7% vs. 12%), compared with older women.
Overall, 46% of women had poor prognostic features. These poor prognostic features were observed in 72% of patients under age 35, compared with 54% aged 35-39, and 40% of those 40 and over.
Compared with women without those features, women with poor prognostic features had a lower 8-year distant recurrence-free interval of 84% vs. 94% (hazard ratio, 1.85), and worse 8-year overall survival of 88% vs. 96%, respectively (HR, 2.20). Notably, younger women under age 40 had the poorest outcomes, with an 8-year distant recurrence-free interval rate of 74% vs. 85% in older women, and an 8-year overall survival of 80% vs. 93%, respectively.
How might these results inform potential therapeutics?
Drugs targeting the homologous recombination deficiency pathway are well established, and up to 36% of very young patients in the study showed genomic features of homologous recombination deficiency, the authors noted.
In addition, Dr. Eng explained, there are other Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments that can target the copy number amplified, PIK3CA-mutated tumors, including therapies that target PIK3CA itself, or proteins downstream of it. However, use of such therapies would need “to be tested experimentally, especially since pathway inhibition sometimes may result in rebound signaling to promote tumor growth,” Dr. Eng said.
An important caveat is that patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be underrepresented in the SOFT clinical trial, as the trial excluded patients who already had bilateral oophorectomy or planned to within 5 years, the authors noted.
Nevertheless, Dr. Loi said that the study is important because “there are no other datasets as large or with this long follow-up for very young women with breast cancer.”
Furthermore, “the SOFT clinical trial was practice-changing, so using the tumor samples associated with this study is more impactful than smaller cohorts with no outcome data or institutional retrospective cohorts,” she said.
Dr. Eng agreed that the study’s size is an important attribute, allowing the authors to “identify differences that would have been missed in a smaller and more heterogeneous series.”
She added that future research should also include ancestry and racial diversity.
“While young women have higher occurrences of aggressive breast cancers, mortality is twice as likely in young Black women, compared to young White women,” Dr. Eng said.
The study received funding from a Susan G. Komen for the Cure Promise Grant, the National Health and Research Council of Australia, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the National Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia, and support from the family of Judy Eisman in Australia. Dr. Loi and Dr. Eng report no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
and offer clues about molecular targets for future trials.
Compared with older women with early stage HR-positive breast cancer, women under 40 years of age had significantly higher frequencies of certain mutations, such as GATA3, as well as genomic features associated with a poor prognosis. Notably, the researchers found that women with such poor prognostic features vs. those with none had a significantly worse 8-year distant recurrence-free interval and overall survival.
“We have demonstrated age-related differences in genomic profiles with enrichment of genomic features associated with poor prognosis in these younger premenopausal women compared with older premenopausal and postmenopausal women,” the authors wrote in the study, published in the Annals of Oncology. Importantly, the genomic features highlight “the potential for age-focused treatment strategies.”
Charis Eng, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Genomic Medicine Institute, Ohio, noted that the findings are promising but need further validation.
“With time and the appropriate clinical trials in place, I envision that these findings will enable the personalized genomics-driven management of these cancers – not only treatment, but also toward prevention,” said Dr. Eng, who was not involved in the study.
Young premenopausal women, particularly those with HR-positive, luminal breast cancer, are known to have significantly higher recurrence rates and worse survival, compared with older women, but the reasons have remained unclear.
Although previous studies have identified key gene expression signatures linked to worse outcomes in younger patients with breast cancer, there are limited data on this younger patient population, especially by breast cancer subtype. Given that breast cancer treatment strategies are often similar across age groups, such evidence gaps could represent missed opportunities for developing more targeted treatment strategies for this high-risk population of young women.
To further investigate the cancer-specific genetic profiles in younger women, Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, and colleagues turned to data from the pivotal, multicenter Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT).
Using next-generation sequencing, Dr. Loi and colleagues evaluated HR-positive, HER2-negative tumors among a subset of 1,276 premenopausal women who were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer. The study employed deep-targeted sequencing for most patients (n = 1,258) as well as whole-exome sequencing in a matched case-control subsample of young women with a median age of 38 years (n = 82).
Compared with women aged 40 and older, those under 40 years of age (n = 359) had significantly higher frequencies of mutations in GATA3 (19% vs. 16%) and copy number-amplifications (47% vs. 26%).
Younger women also had significantly higher features suggestive of homologous recombination deficiency (27% vs. 21% in older women), and a higher proportion of PIK3CA mutations with concurrent copy number-amplifications (23% vs. 11%, respectively), all considered to be poor prognostic features.
In addition, younger women had significantly lower frequencies of certain mutations, including PIK3CA (32% vs. 47%), CDH1 (3% vs. 9%), and MAP3K1 (7% vs. 12%), compared with older women.
Overall, 46% of women had poor prognostic features. These poor prognostic features were observed in 72% of patients under age 35, compared with 54% aged 35-39, and 40% of those 40 and over.
Compared with women without those features, women with poor prognostic features had a lower 8-year distant recurrence-free interval of 84% vs. 94% (hazard ratio, 1.85), and worse 8-year overall survival of 88% vs. 96%, respectively (HR, 2.20). Notably, younger women under age 40 had the poorest outcomes, with an 8-year distant recurrence-free interval rate of 74% vs. 85% in older women, and an 8-year overall survival of 80% vs. 93%, respectively.
How might these results inform potential therapeutics?
Drugs targeting the homologous recombination deficiency pathway are well established, and up to 36% of very young patients in the study showed genomic features of homologous recombination deficiency, the authors noted.
In addition, Dr. Eng explained, there are other Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments that can target the copy number amplified, PIK3CA-mutated tumors, including therapies that target PIK3CA itself, or proteins downstream of it. However, use of such therapies would need “to be tested experimentally, especially since pathway inhibition sometimes may result in rebound signaling to promote tumor growth,” Dr. Eng said.
An important caveat is that patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be underrepresented in the SOFT clinical trial, as the trial excluded patients who already had bilateral oophorectomy or planned to within 5 years, the authors noted.
Nevertheless, Dr. Loi said that the study is important because “there are no other datasets as large or with this long follow-up for very young women with breast cancer.”
Furthermore, “the SOFT clinical trial was practice-changing, so using the tumor samples associated with this study is more impactful than smaller cohorts with no outcome data or institutional retrospective cohorts,” she said.
Dr. Eng agreed that the study’s size is an important attribute, allowing the authors to “identify differences that would have been missed in a smaller and more heterogeneous series.”
She added that future research should also include ancestry and racial diversity.
“While young women have higher occurrences of aggressive breast cancers, mortality is twice as likely in young Black women, compared to young White women,” Dr. Eng said.
The study received funding from a Susan G. Komen for the Cure Promise Grant, the National Health and Research Council of Australia, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the National Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia, and support from the family of Judy Eisman in Australia. Dr. Loi and Dr. Eng report no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
and offer clues about molecular targets for future trials.
Compared with older women with early stage HR-positive breast cancer, women under 40 years of age had significantly higher frequencies of certain mutations, such as GATA3, as well as genomic features associated with a poor prognosis. Notably, the researchers found that women with such poor prognostic features vs. those with none had a significantly worse 8-year distant recurrence-free interval and overall survival.
“We have demonstrated age-related differences in genomic profiles with enrichment of genomic features associated with poor prognosis in these younger premenopausal women compared with older premenopausal and postmenopausal women,” the authors wrote in the study, published in the Annals of Oncology. Importantly, the genomic features highlight “the potential for age-focused treatment strategies.”
Charis Eng, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Genomic Medicine Institute, Ohio, noted that the findings are promising but need further validation.
“With time and the appropriate clinical trials in place, I envision that these findings will enable the personalized genomics-driven management of these cancers – not only treatment, but also toward prevention,” said Dr. Eng, who was not involved in the study.
Young premenopausal women, particularly those with HR-positive, luminal breast cancer, are known to have significantly higher recurrence rates and worse survival, compared with older women, but the reasons have remained unclear.
Although previous studies have identified key gene expression signatures linked to worse outcomes in younger patients with breast cancer, there are limited data on this younger patient population, especially by breast cancer subtype. Given that breast cancer treatment strategies are often similar across age groups, such evidence gaps could represent missed opportunities for developing more targeted treatment strategies for this high-risk population of young women.
To further investigate the cancer-specific genetic profiles in younger women, Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, and colleagues turned to data from the pivotal, multicenter Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT).
Using next-generation sequencing, Dr. Loi and colleagues evaluated HR-positive, HER2-negative tumors among a subset of 1,276 premenopausal women who were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer. The study employed deep-targeted sequencing for most patients (n = 1,258) as well as whole-exome sequencing in a matched case-control subsample of young women with a median age of 38 years (n = 82).
Compared with women aged 40 and older, those under 40 years of age (n = 359) had significantly higher frequencies of mutations in GATA3 (19% vs. 16%) and copy number-amplifications (47% vs. 26%).
Younger women also had significantly higher features suggestive of homologous recombination deficiency (27% vs. 21% in older women), and a higher proportion of PIK3CA mutations with concurrent copy number-amplifications (23% vs. 11%, respectively), all considered to be poor prognostic features.
In addition, younger women had significantly lower frequencies of certain mutations, including PIK3CA (32% vs. 47%), CDH1 (3% vs. 9%), and MAP3K1 (7% vs. 12%), compared with older women.
Overall, 46% of women had poor prognostic features. These poor prognostic features were observed in 72% of patients under age 35, compared with 54% aged 35-39, and 40% of those 40 and over.
Compared with women without those features, women with poor prognostic features had a lower 8-year distant recurrence-free interval of 84% vs. 94% (hazard ratio, 1.85), and worse 8-year overall survival of 88% vs. 96%, respectively (HR, 2.20). Notably, younger women under age 40 had the poorest outcomes, with an 8-year distant recurrence-free interval rate of 74% vs. 85% in older women, and an 8-year overall survival of 80% vs. 93%, respectively.
How might these results inform potential therapeutics?
Drugs targeting the homologous recombination deficiency pathway are well established, and up to 36% of very young patients in the study showed genomic features of homologous recombination deficiency, the authors noted.
In addition, Dr. Eng explained, there are other Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments that can target the copy number amplified, PIK3CA-mutated tumors, including therapies that target PIK3CA itself, or proteins downstream of it. However, use of such therapies would need “to be tested experimentally, especially since pathway inhibition sometimes may result in rebound signaling to promote tumor growth,” Dr. Eng said.
An important caveat is that patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be underrepresented in the SOFT clinical trial, as the trial excluded patients who already had bilateral oophorectomy or planned to within 5 years, the authors noted.
Nevertheless, Dr. Loi said that the study is important because “there are no other datasets as large or with this long follow-up for very young women with breast cancer.”
Furthermore, “the SOFT clinical trial was practice-changing, so using the tumor samples associated with this study is more impactful than smaller cohorts with no outcome data or institutional retrospective cohorts,” she said.
Dr. Eng agreed that the study’s size is an important attribute, allowing the authors to “identify differences that would have been missed in a smaller and more heterogeneous series.”
She added that future research should also include ancestry and racial diversity.
“While young women have higher occurrences of aggressive breast cancers, mortality is twice as likely in young Black women, compared to young White women,” Dr. Eng said.
The study received funding from a Susan G. Komen for the Cure Promise Grant, the National Health and Research Council of Australia, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the National Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia, and support from the family of Judy Eisman in Australia. Dr. Loi and Dr. Eng report no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
The 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is increasing
John Whyte, MD: Hello, I’m Dr. John Whyte, the Chief Medical Officer of WebMD. One of those cancers was pancreatic cancer, which historically has had a very low survival rate. What’s going on here? Are we doing better with diagnosis, treatment, a combination?
Joining me today is Dr. Lynn Matrisian. She is PanCAN’s chief science officer. Dr. Matrisian, thanks for joining me today. It’s great to see you.
Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA: Great to be here. Thank you.
Dr. Whyte: Well, tell me what your first reaction was when you saw the recent data from the American Cancer Society. What one word would you use?
Dr. Matrisian: Hopeful. I think hopeful in general that survival rates are increasing, not for all cancers, but for many cancers. We continue to make progress. Research is making a difference. And we’re making progress against cancer in general.
Dr. Whyte: You’re passionate, as our viewers know, about pancreatic cancer. And that’s been one of the hardest cancers to treat, and one of the lowest survival rates. But there’s some encouraging news that we saw, didn’t we?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. So the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer went up a whole percentage. It’s at 12% now. And what’s really good is it was at 11% last year. It was at 10% the year before. So that’s 2 years in a row that we’ve had an increase in the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer. So we’re hopeful that’s a trajectory that we can really capitalize on is how fast we’re making progress in this disease.
Dr. Whyte: I want to put it into context, Lynn. Because some people might be thinking, 1%? Like you’re excited about 1%? That doesn’t seem that much. But correct me if I’m wrong. A one percentage point increase means 641 more loved ones will enjoy life’s moments, as you put it, 5 years after their diagnosis that otherwise wouldn’t have. What does that practically mean to viewers?
Dr. Matrisian: That means that more than 600 people in the United States will hug a loved one 5 years after that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It is a very deadly disease. But we’re going to, by continuing to make progress, it gives those moments to those people. And it means that we’re making progress against the disease in general.
Dr. Whyte: So even 1%, and 1% each year, does have value.
Dr. Matrisian: It has a lot of value.
Dr. Whyte: What’s driving this improvement? Is it better screening? And we’re not so great still in screening a pancreatic cancer. Is it the innovation in cancer treatments? What do you think is accounting for what we hope is this trajectory of increases in 5-year survival?
Dr. Matrisian: Right, so the nice thing the reason that we like looking at 5-year survival rates is because it takes into account all of those things. And we have actually made progress in all of those things. So by looking at those that are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in general as a whole, and looking at their survival, we are looking at better treatments. People who are getting pancreatic cancer later are living longer as a result of better treatments.
But it’s not just that. It’s also, if you’re diagnosed earlier, your 5-year survival rate is higher. More people who are diagnosed early live to five years than those that are diagnosed later. So within that statistic, there are more people who are diagnosed earlier. And those people also live longer. So it takes into account all of those things, which is why we really like to look at that five-year survival rate for a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: Where are we on screening? Because we always want to catch people early. That gives them that greatest chance of survival. Have we made much improvements there? And if we have, what are they?
Dr. Matrisian: Well we have made improvements there are more people that are now diagnosed with localized disease than there were 20 years ago. So that is increasing. And we’re still doing it really by being aware of the symptoms right now. Being aware that kind of chronic indigestion, lower back pain that won’t go away, these are signs and symptoms. And especially things like jaundice ...
Dr. Whyte: That yellow color that they might see.
Dr. Matrisian: Yes, that yellow colors in your eye, that’s a really important symptom that would certainly send people to the doctor in order to look at this. So some of it is being more aware and finding the disease earlier. But what we’re really hoping for is some sort of blood test or some sort of other way of looking through medical records and identifying those people that need to go and be checked.
Dr. Whyte: Now we chatted about that almost two years ago. So tell me the progress that we’ve made. How are we doing?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah, well there’s a number of companies now that have blood tests that are available. They still need more work. They still need more studies to really understand how good they are at finding pancreatic cancer early. But we didn’t have them a couple of years ago. And so it’s really a very exciting time in the field, that there’s companies that were taking advantage of research for many years and actually turning it into a commercial product that is available for people to check.
Dr. Whyte: And then what about treatments? More treatment options today than there were just a few years ago, but still a lot of progress to be made. So when we talk about even 12% 5-year survival, we’d love to see it much more. And you talk about, I don’t want to misquote, so correct me if I’m wrong. Your goal is 20%. Five-year survival by 2030. That’s not too far. So, Lynn, how are we going to get there?
Dr. Matrisian: Okay, well this is our mission. And that’s exactly our goal, 20% by 2030. So we’ve got some work to do. And we are working at both fronts. You’re right, we need better treatments. And so we’ve set up a clinical trial platform where we can look at a lot of different treatments much more efficiently, much faster, kind of taking advantage of an infrastructure to do that. And that’s called Precision Promise. And we’re excited about that as a way to get new treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.
And then we’re also working on the early detection end. We think an important symptom of pancreatic cancer that isn’t often recognized is new onset diabetes, sudden diabetes in those over 50 where that person did not have diabetes before. So it’s new, looks like type 2 diabetes, but it’s actually caused by pancreatic cancer.
And so we have an initiative, The Early Detection Initiative, that is taking advantage of that. And seeing if we image people right away based on that symptom, can we find pancreatic cancer early? So we think it’s important to look both at trying to diagnose it earlier, as well as trying to treat it better for advanced disease.
Dr. Whyte: Yeah. You know, at WebMD we’re always trying to empower people with better information so they can also become advocates for their health. You’re an expert in advocacy on pancreatic cancer. So what’s your advice to listeners as to how they become good advocates for themselves or advocates in general for loved ones who have pancreatic cancer?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well certainly, knowledge is power. And so the real thing to do is to call the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. This is what we do. We stay up on the most current information. We have very experienced case managers who can help navigate the complexities of pancreatic cancer at every stage of the journey.
Or if you have questions about pancreatic cancer, call PanCAN. Go to PanCAN.org and give us a call. Because it’s really that knowledge, knowing what it is that you need to get more knowledge about, how to advocate for yourself is very important in a disease, in any disease, but in particular a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: And I don’t want to dismiss the progress that we’ve made, that you’ve just referenced in terms of the increased survival. But there’s still a long way to go. We need a lot more dollars for research. We need a lot more clinical trials to take place. What’s your message to a viewer who’s been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or a loved one? What’s your message, Lynn, today for them?
Dr. Matrisian: Well, first, get as much knowledge as you can. Call PanCAN, and let us help you help your loved one. But then help us. Let’s do research. Let’s do more research. Let’s understand this disease better so we can make those kinds of progress in both treatment and early detection.
And PanCAN works very hard at understanding the disease and setting up research programs that are going to make a difference, that are going to get us to that aggressive goal of 20% survival by 2030. So there is a lot of things that can be done, raise awareness to your friends and neighbors about the disease, lots of things that will help this whole field.
Dr. Whyte: What’s your feeling on second opinions? Given that this can be a difficult cancer to treat, given that there’s emerging therapies that are always developing, when you have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is it important to consider getting a second opinion?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. Yes, it is. And our case managers will help with that process. We do think it’s important.
Dr. Whyte: Because sometimes, Lynn, people just want to get started, right? Get it out of me. Get treatment. And sometimes getting a second opinion, doing some genomic testing can take time. So what’s your response to that?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well we say, your care team is very important. Who is on your care team, and it may take a little time to find the right people on your care team. But that is an incredibly important step. Sometimes it’s not just one person. Sometimes you need more than one doctor, more than one nurse, more than one type of specialty to help you deal with this. And taking the time to do that is incredibly important.
Yes, you need to – you do need to act. But act smart. And do it with knowledge. Do it really understanding what your options are, and advocate for yourself.
Dr. Whyte: And surround yourself as you reference with that right care team for you, because that’s the most important thing when you have any type of cancer diagnosis. Dr. Lynn Matrisian, I want to thank you for taking time today.
Dr. Matrisian: Thank you so much, John.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
John Whyte, MD: Hello, I’m Dr. John Whyte, the Chief Medical Officer of WebMD. One of those cancers was pancreatic cancer, which historically has had a very low survival rate. What’s going on here? Are we doing better with diagnosis, treatment, a combination?
Joining me today is Dr. Lynn Matrisian. She is PanCAN’s chief science officer. Dr. Matrisian, thanks for joining me today. It’s great to see you.
Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA: Great to be here. Thank you.
Dr. Whyte: Well, tell me what your first reaction was when you saw the recent data from the American Cancer Society. What one word would you use?
Dr. Matrisian: Hopeful. I think hopeful in general that survival rates are increasing, not for all cancers, but for many cancers. We continue to make progress. Research is making a difference. And we’re making progress against cancer in general.
Dr. Whyte: You’re passionate, as our viewers know, about pancreatic cancer. And that’s been one of the hardest cancers to treat, and one of the lowest survival rates. But there’s some encouraging news that we saw, didn’t we?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. So the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer went up a whole percentage. It’s at 12% now. And what’s really good is it was at 11% last year. It was at 10% the year before. So that’s 2 years in a row that we’ve had an increase in the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer. So we’re hopeful that’s a trajectory that we can really capitalize on is how fast we’re making progress in this disease.
Dr. Whyte: I want to put it into context, Lynn. Because some people might be thinking, 1%? Like you’re excited about 1%? That doesn’t seem that much. But correct me if I’m wrong. A one percentage point increase means 641 more loved ones will enjoy life’s moments, as you put it, 5 years after their diagnosis that otherwise wouldn’t have. What does that practically mean to viewers?
Dr. Matrisian: That means that more than 600 people in the United States will hug a loved one 5 years after that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It is a very deadly disease. But we’re going to, by continuing to make progress, it gives those moments to those people. And it means that we’re making progress against the disease in general.
Dr. Whyte: So even 1%, and 1% each year, does have value.
Dr. Matrisian: It has a lot of value.
Dr. Whyte: What’s driving this improvement? Is it better screening? And we’re not so great still in screening a pancreatic cancer. Is it the innovation in cancer treatments? What do you think is accounting for what we hope is this trajectory of increases in 5-year survival?
Dr. Matrisian: Right, so the nice thing the reason that we like looking at 5-year survival rates is because it takes into account all of those things. And we have actually made progress in all of those things. So by looking at those that are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in general as a whole, and looking at their survival, we are looking at better treatments. People who are getting pancreatic cancer later are living longer as a result of better treatments.
But it’s not just that. It’s also, if you’re diagnosed earlier, your 5-year survival rate is higher. More people who are diagnosed early live to five years than those that are diagnosed later. So within that statistic, there are more people who are diagnosed earlier. And those people also live longer. So it takes into account all of those things, which is why we really like to look at that five-year survival rate for a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: Where are we on screening? Because we always want to catch people early. That gives them that greatest chance of survival. Have we made much improvements there? And if we have, what are they?
Dr. Matrisian: Well we have made improvements there are more people that are now diagnosed with localized disease than there were 20 years ago. So that is increasing. And we’re still doing it really by being aware of the symptoms right now. Being aware that kind of chronic indigestion, lower back pain that won’t go away, these are signs and symptoms. And especially things like jaundice ...
Dr. Whyte: That yellow color that they might see.
Dr. Matrisian: Yes, that yellow colors in your eye, that’s a really important symptom that would certainly send people to the doctor in order to look at this. So some of it is being more aware and finding the disease earlier. But what we’re really hoping for is some sort of blood test or some sort of other way of looking through medical records and identifying those people that need to go and be checked.
Dr. Whyte: Now we chatted about that almost two years ago. So tell me the progress that we’ve made. How are we doing?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah, well there’s a number of companies now that have blood tests that are available. They still need more work. They still need more studies to really understand how good they are at finding pancreatic cancer early. But we didn’t have them a couple of years ago. And so it’s really a very exciting time in the field, that there’s companies that were taking advantage of research for many years and actually turning it into a commercial product that is available for people to check.
Dr. Whyte: And then what about treatments? More treatment options today than there were just a few years ago, but still a lot of progress to be made. So when we talk about even 12% 5-year survival, we’d love to see it much more. And you talk about, I don’t want to misquote, so correct me if I’m wrong. Your goal is 20%. Five-year survival by 2030. That’s not too far. So, Lynn, how are we going to get there?
Dr. Matrisian: Okay, well this is our mission. And that’s exactly our goal, 20% by 2030. So we’ve got some work to do. And we are working at both fronts. You’re right, we need better treatments. And so we’ve set up a clinical trial platform where we can look at a lot of different treatments much more efficiently, much faster, kind of taking advantage of an infrastructure to do that. And that’s called Precision Promise. And we’re excited about that as a way to get new treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.
And then we’re also working on the early detection end. We think an important symptom of pancreatic cancer that isn’t often recognized is new onset diabetes, sudden diabetes in those over 50 where that person did not have diabetes before. So it’s new, looks like type 2 diabetes, but it’s actually caused by pancreatic cancer.
And so we have an initiative, The Early Detection Initiative, that is taking advantage of that. And seeing if we image people right away based on that symptom, can we find pancreatic cancer early? So we think it’s important to look both at trying to diagnose it earlier, as well as trying to treat it better for advanced disease.
Dr. Whyte: Yeah. You know, at WebMD we’re always trying to empower people with better information so they can also become advocates for their health. You’re an expert in advocacy on pancreatic cancer. So what’s your advice to listeners as to how they become good advocates for themselves or advocates in general for loved ones who have pancreatic cancer?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well certainly, knowledge is power. And so the real thing to do is to call the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. This is what we do. We stay up on the most current information. We have very experienced case managers who can help navigate the complexities of pancreatic cancer at every stage of the journey.
Or if you have questions about pancreatic cancer, call PanCAN. Go to PanCAN.org and give us a call. Because it’s really that knowledge, knowing what it is that you need to get more knowledge about, how to advocate for yourself is very important in a disease, in any disease, but in particular a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: And I don’t want to dismiss the progress that we’ve made, that you’ve just referenced in terms of the increased survival. But there’s still a long way to go. We need a lot more dollars for research. We need a lot more clinical trials to take place. What’s your message to a viewer who’s been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or a loved one? What’s your message, Lynn, today for them?
Dr. Matrisian: Well, first, get as much knowledge as you can. Call PanCAN, and let us help you help your loved one. But then help us. Let’s do research. Let’s do more research. Let’s understand this disease better so we can make those kinds of progress in both treatment and early detection.
And PanCAN works very hard at understanding the disease and setting up research programs that are going to make a difference, that are going to get us to that aggressive goal of 20% survival by 2030. So there is a lot of things that can be done, raise awareness to your friends and neighbors about the disease, lots of things that will help this whole field.
Dr. Whyte: What’s your feeling on second opinions? Given that this can be a difficult cancer to treat, given that there’s emerging therapies that are always developing, when you have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is it important to consider getting a second opinion?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. Yes, it is. And our case managers will help with that process. We do think it’s important.
Dr. Whyte: Because sometimes, Lynn, people just want to get started, right? Get it out of me. Get treatment. And sometimes getting a second opinion, doing some genomic testing can take time. So what’s your response to that?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well we say, your care team is very important. Who is on your care team, and it may take a little time to find the right people on your care team. But that is an incredibly important step. Sometimes it’s not just one person. Sometimes you need more than one doctor, more than one nurse, more than one type of specialty to help you deal with this. And taking the time to do that is incredibly important.
Yes, you need to – you do need to act. But act smart. And do it with knowledge. Do it really understanding what your options are, and advocate for yourself.
Dr. Whyte: And surround yourself as you reference with that right care team for you, because that’s the most important thing when you have any type of cancer diagnosis. Dr. Lynn Matrisian, I want to thank you for taking time today.
Dr. Matrisian: Thank you so much, John.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
John Whyte, MD: Hello, I’m Dr. John Whyte, the Chief Medical Officer of WebMD. One of those cancers was pancreatic cancer, which historically has had a very low survival rate. What’s going on here? Are we doing better with diagnosis, treatment, a combination?
Joining me today is Dr. Lynn Matrisian. She is PanCAN’s chief science officer. Dr. Matrisian, thanks for joining me today. It’s great to see you.
Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA: Great to be here. Thank you.
Dr. Whyte: Well, tell me what your first reaction was when you saw the recent data from the American Cancer Society. What one word would you use?
Dr. Matrisian: Hopeful. I think hopeful in general that survival rates are increasing, not for all cancers, but for many cancers. We continue to make progress. Research is making a difference. And we’re making progress against cancer in general.
Dr. Whyte: You’re passionate, as our viewers know, about pancreatic cancer. And that’s been one of the hardest cancers to treat, and one of the lowest survival rates. But there’s some encouraging news that we saw, didn’t we?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. So the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer went up a whole percentage. It’s at 12% now. And what’s really good is it was at 11% last year. It was at 10% the year before. So that’s 2 years in a row that we’ve had an increase in the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer. So we’re hopeful that’s a trajectory that we can really capitalize on is how fast we’re making progress in this disease.
Dr. Whyte: I want to put it into context, Lynn. Because some people might be thinking, 1%? Like you’re excited about 1%? That doesn’t seem that much. But correct me if I’m wrong. A one percentage point increase means 641 more loved ones will enjoy life’s moments, as you put it, 5 years after their diagnosis that otherwise wouldn’t have. What does that practically mean to viewers?
Dr. Matrisian: That means that more than 600 people in the United States will hug a loved one 5 years after that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It is a very deadly disease. But we’re going to, by continuing to make progress, it gives those moments to those people. And it means that we’re making progress against the disease in general.
Dr. Whyte: So even 1%, and 1% each year, does have value.
Dr. Matrisian: It has a lot of value.
Dr. Whyte: What’s driving this improvement? Is it better screening? And we’re not so great still in screening a pancreatic cancer. Is it the innovation in cancer treatments? What do you think is accounting for what we hope is this trajectory of increases in 5-year survival?
Dr. Matrisian: Right, so the nice thing the reason that we like looking at 5-year survival rates is because it takes into account all of those things. And we have actually made progress in all of those things. So by looking at those that are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in general as a whole, and looking at their survival, we are looking at better treatments. People who are getting pancreatic cancer later are living longer as a result of better treatments.
But it’s not just that. It’s also, if you’re diagnosed earlier, your 5-year survival rate is higher. More people who are diagnosed early live to five years than those that are diagnosed later. So within that statistic, there are more people who are diagnosed earlier. And those people also live longer. So it takes into account all of those things, which is why we really like to look at that five-year survival rate for a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: Where are we on screening? Because we always want to catch people early. That gives them that greatest chance of survival. Have we made much improvements there? And if we have, what are they?
Dr. Matrisian: Well we have made improvements there are more people that are now diagnosed with localized disease than there were 20 years ago. So that is increasing. And we’re still doing it really by being aware of the symptoms right now. Being aware that kind of chronic indigestion, lower back pain that won’t go away, these are signs and symptoms. And especially things like jaundice ...
Dr. Whyte: That yellow color that they might see.
Dr. Matrisian: Yes, that yellow colors in your eye, that’s a really important symptom that would certainly send people to the doctor in order to look at this. So some of it is being more aware and finding the disease earlier. But what we’re really hoping for is some sort of blood test or some sort of other way of looking through medical records and identifying those people that need to go and be checked.
Dr. Whyte: Now we chatted about that almost two years ago. So tell me the progress that we’ve made. How are we doing?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah, well there’s a number of companies now that have blood tests that are available. They still need more work. They still need more studies to really understand how good they are at finding pancreatic cancer early. But we didn’t have them a couple of years ago. And so it’s really a very exciting time in the field, that there’s companies that were taking advantage of research for many years and actually turning it into a commercial product that is available for people to check.
Dr. Whyte: And then what about treatments? More treatment options today than there were just a few years ago, but still a lot of progress to be made. So when we talk about even 12% 5-year survival, we’d love to see it much more. And you talk about, I don’t want to misquote, so correct me if I’m wrong. Your goal is 20%. Five-year survival by 2030. That’s not too far. So, Lynn, how are we going to get there?
Dr. Matrisian: Okay, well this is our mission. And that’s exactly our goal, 20% by 2030. So we’ve got some work to do. And we are working at both fronts. You’re right, we need better treatments. And so we’ve set up a clinical trial platform where we can look at a lot of different treatments much more efficiently, much faster, kind of taking advantage of an infrastructure to do that. And that’s called Precision Promise. And we’re excited about that as a way to get new treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.
And then we’re also working on the early detection end. We think an important symptom of pancreatic cancer that isn’t often recognized is new onset diabetes, sudden diabetes in those over 50 where that person did not have diabetes before. So it’s new, looks like type 2 diabetes, but it’s actually caused by pancreatic cancer.
And so we have an initiative, The Early Detection Initiative, that is taking advantage of that. And seeing if we image people right away based on that symptom, can we find pancreatic cancer early? So we think it’s important to look both at trying to diagnose it earlier, as well as trying to treat it better for advanced disease.
Dr. Whyte: Yeah. You know, at WebMD we’re always trying to empower people with better information so they can also become advocates for their health. You’re an expert in advocacy on pancreatic cancer. So what’s your advice to listeners as to how they become good advocates for themselves or advocates in general for loved ones who have pancreatic cancer?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well certainly, knowledge is power. And so the real thing to do is to call the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. This is what we do. We stay up on the most current information. We have very experienced case managers who can help navigate the complexities of pancreatic cancer at every stage of the journey.
Or if you have questions about pancreatic cancer, call PanCAN. Go to PanCAN.org and give us a call. Because it’s really that knowledge, knowing what it is that you need to get more knowledge about, how to advocate for yourself is very important in a disease, in any disease, but in particular a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: And I don’t want to dismiss the progress that we’ve made, that you’ve just referenced in terms of the increased survival. But there’s still a long way to go. We need a lot more dollars for research. We need a lot more clinical trials to take place. What’s your message to a viewer who’s been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or a loved one? What’s your message, Lynn, today for them?
Dr. Matrisian: Well, first, get as much knowledge as you can. Call PanCAN, and let us help you help your loved one. But then help us. Let’s do research. Let’s do more research. Let’s understand this disease better so we can make those kinds of progress in both treatment and early detection.
And PanCAN works very hard at understanding the disease and setting up research programs that are going to make a difference, that are going to get us to that aggressive goal of 20% survival by 2030. So there is a lot of things that can be done, raise awareness to your friends and neighbors about the disease, lots of things that will help this whole field.
Dr. Whyte: What’s your feeling on second opinions? Given that this can be a difficult cancer to treat, given that there’s emerging therapies that are always developing, when you have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is it important to consider getting a second opinion?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. Yes, it is. And our case managers will help with that process. We do think it’s important.
Dr. Whyte: Because sometimes, Lynn, people just want to get started, right? Get it out of me. Get treatment. And sometimes getting a second opinion, doing some genomic testing can take time. So what’s your response to that?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well we say, your care team is very important. Who is on your care team, and it may take a little time to find the right people on your care team. But that is an incredibly important step. Sometimes it’s not just one person. Sometimes you need more than one doctor, more than one nurse, more than one type of specialty to help you deal with this. And taking the time to do that is incredibly important.
Yes, you need to – you do need to act. But act smart. And do it with knowledge. Do it really understanding what your options are, and advocate for yourself.
Dr. Whyte: And surround yourself as you reference with that right care team for you, because that’s the most important thing when you have any type of cancer diagnosis. Dr. Lynn Matrisian, I want to thank you for taking time today.
Dr. Matrisian: Thank you so much, John.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.