Genitourinary Cancer

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

The annual meeting of the American Urological Association took place recently at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans. A common theme among attendees was that, although Zoom is a wonderful tool to disseminate information, something about physically attending a conference makes the meeting more rewarding and productive. Hundreds of talks and abstracts were presented over the 4 days in New Orleans; below is a summary of what I found to be the key scientific highlights.

1. Updates to the AUA’s guidelines for management of localized kidney cancer

The AUA’s recommendations for the treatment of localized kidney cancer have changed dramatically over the past few decades. Gone are the days of simply removing the entire kidney every time a mass is found. Today, a partial nephrectomy is preferred in most situations.

Our understanding that the prevalence of familial kidney cancer is much higher than previously thought has led to a change in the guidelines regarding which patients should receive genetic counseling. For the first time, the guidelines include the use of adjuvant medical treatment, such as pembrolizumab. A 2021 study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed a survival benefit for patients with high-risk disease who receive such therapies, so it›s not surprising that such treatments are now recommended.

The development of new second- and third-generation gadolinium contrast agents that spare the kidneys has dramatically increased the role for MRIs for patients with severe or even end-stage renal disease. As a result, the guidelines were updated to recommend the use of these agents. The role of a renal biopsy, which has always been limited, given the ability of cross-sectional imaging to diagnosis this disease, has further been constrained and should now be performed only when the results would clearly change a clinical decision, such as whether or not the lesion in question is a metastasis.

2. New and better ureteroscope technology

No one likes kidney stones, not the patient who deals with the incredible pain, nor the surgeon who has to remove them, given that these cases often present in the wee hours of the morning. The preferred surgical approach has changed dramatically over the past decade, moving away from extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy toward flexible ureteroscope-based technology, which has a higher clearance rate and is more widely and more immediately available. Flexible ureteroscopy has been held back by technological barriers, including limited scope deflection and low laser power. The exceptionally high cost of repair and the tendency of the instruments to break haven’t helped, either. Although single-use ureteroscopes have been available for some time, it wasn’t until the recently introduced second-generation scopes became widely available that they have become popular. These new scopes have small external diameters, great optics, and can easily be used. Newer high-powered lasers and the change from holmium:YAG-based lasers to thulium technology is greatly increasing the size of stones that can be safely addressed ureteroscopically. The cost analysis of single-use technology versus reusable scopes tends to be site dependent but can be appealing in certain situations. Also, on the technology forefront, a new robotically assisted ureteroscope is being introduced that offers the chance for improved intrapelvic mobility and better ergonomics for the surgeon.

3. New options for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

Since the guidelines were last updated in 2017, the definitive management of localized prostate cancer has changed dramatically. Although radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy remain the preferred options for men who choose treatment for their disease, the updated guidelines state that active surveillance is now the preferred approach for men with low-risk cancers.

Although the preferred surveillance protocol is still being debated, the consensus is that almost all men with low-risk disease can be safely monitored for some period. The imaging technology available to monitor patients is also radically changing with the rollout of prostate-specific membrane antigen–based PET technology. The increased sensitivity and specificity of this modality opens the door not only for better up-front staging of newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer but also may allow clinicians to earlier identify and treat men with metastatic disease. The guidelines for the first time address the use of genetic markers to individualize treatment of men with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Exactly which treatments these patients need is still being debated, but the ability to use patient-specific genetic mutation information to customize treatment is potentially groundbreaking.

4. New treatment options for patients with high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) refractory to bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy

Patients with NMIBC who do not respond to BCG therapy are in a tough position. Cystectomy remains the preferred option as a second-line strategy, but the procedure has a complication rate approaching 30%. Further, many patients are not willing to have their bladder removed because of the life-altering changes that go along with having an urostomy or a neobladder. While intravesical treatments such as valrubicin, docetaxel, or gemcitabine have been available for many years, the success rates of those options are limited. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved the use of the immunotherapy-based treatment pembrolizumab. While none of these options is perfect, the fact that we now have at least some alternatives is a huge step in the right direction.

5. It’s all about the patient: Involving patients in designing the health care delivery system

Although it seems like an obvious concept, patients themselves have traditionally not been involved in designing the health care delivery system on which they rely. Research presented at the AUA shows that many health care outcomes improve when patients are actively involved in the process. For example, Angela Smith, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, presented a study showing that including patients in the identification of possible research topics helps them feel engaged and more likely to participate in studies. Patients who are involved in advisory councils at the local hospital level are more likely to report having received high-quality care. And surveying patients on the goals of national health care policy helps them feel that the outcomes are more equitable.

As a small-town urologist who spends his days in the trenches of urology, I think the next time my group considers participating in new cancer research, I may talk to the local cancer support group first. If Dr. Smith’s data are correct, not only would our patients be better served, but we would also have an easier time filling the trial!

The 2023 AUA conference is going to be held in Chicago next spring. I hope to see you there!

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

The annual meeting of the American Urological Association took place recently at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans. A common theme among attendees was that, although Zoom is a wonderful tool to disseminate information, something about physically attending a conference makes the meeting more rewarding and productive. Hundreds of talks and abstracts were presented over the 4 days in New Orleans; below is a summary of what I found to be the key scientific highlights.

1. Updates to the AUA’s guidelines for management of localized kidney cancer

The AUA’s recommendations for the treatment of localized kidney cancer have changed dramatically over the past few decades. Gone are the days of simply removing the entire kidney every time a mass is found. Today, a partial nephrectomy is preferred in most situations.

Our understanding that the prevalence of familial kidney cancer is much higher than previously thought has led to a change in the guidelines regarding which patients should receive genetic counseling. For the first time, the guidelines include the use of adjuvant medical treatment, such as pembrolizumab. A 2021 study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed a survival benefit for patients with high-risk disease who receive such therapies, so it›s not surprising that such treatments are now recommended.

The development of new second- and third-generation gadolinium contrast agents that spare the kidneys has dramatically increased the role for MRIs for patients with severe or even end-stage renal disease. As a result, the guidelines were updated to recommend the use of these agents. The role of a renal biopsy, which has always been limited, given the ability of cross-sectional imaging to diagnosis this disease, has further been constrained and should now be performed only when the results would clearly change a clinical decision, such as whether or not the lesion in question is a metastasis.

2. New and better ureteroscope technology

No one likes kidney stones, not the patient who deals with the incredible pain, nor the surgeon who has to remove them, given that these cases often present in the wee hours of the morning. The preferred surgical approach has changed dramatically over the past decade, moving away from extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy toward flexible ureteroscope-based technology, which has a higher clearance rate and is more widely and more immediately available. Flexible ureteroscopy has been held back by technological barriers, including limited scope deflection and low laser power. The exceptionally high cost of repair and the tendency of the instruments to break haven’t helped, either. Although single-use ureteroscopes have been available for some time, it wasn’t until the recently introduced second-generation scopes became widely available that they have become popular. These new scopes have small external diameters, great optics, and can easily be used. Newer high-powered lasers and the change from holmium:YAG-based lasers to thulium technology is greatly increasing the size of stones that can be safely addressed ureteroscopically. The cost analysis of single-use technology versus reusable scopes tends to be site dependent but can be appealing in certain situations. Also, on the technology forefront, a new robotically assisted ureteroscope is being introduced that offers the chance for improved intrapelvic mobility and better ergonomics for the surgeon.

3. New options for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

Since the guidelines were last updated in 2017, the definitive management of localized prostate cancer has changed dramatically. Although radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy remain the preferred options for men who choose treatment for their disease, the updated guidelines state that active surveillance is now the preferred approach for men with low-risk cancers.

Although the preferred surveillance protocol is still being debated, the consensus is that almost all men with low-risk disease can be safely monitored for some period. The imaging technology available to monitor patients is also radically changing with the rollout of prostate-specific membrane antigen–based PET technology. The increased sensitivity and specificity of this modality opens the door not only for better up-front staging of newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer but also may allow clinicians to earlier identify and treat men with metastatic disease. The guidelines for the first time address the use of genetic markers to individualize treatment of men with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Exactly which treatments these patients need is still being debated, but the ability to use patient-specific genetic mutation information to customize treatment is potentially groundbreaking.

4. New treatment options for patients with high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) refractory to bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy

Patients with NMIBC who do not respond to BCG therapy are in a tough position. Cystectomy remains the preferred option as a second-line strategy, but the procedure has a complication rate approaching 30%. Further, many patients are not willing to have their bladder removed because of the life-altering changes that go along with having an urostomy or a neobladder. While intravesical treatments such as valrubicin, docetaxel, or gemcitabine have been available for many years, the success rates of those options are limited. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved the use of the immunotherapy-based treatment pembrolizumab. While none of these options is perfect, the fact that we now have at least some alternatives is a huge step in the right direction.

5. It’s all about the patient: Involving patients in designing the health care delivery system

Although it seems like an obvious concept, patients themselves have traditionally not been involved in designing the health care delivery system on which they rely. Research presented at the AUA shows that many health care outcomes improve when patients are actively involved in the process. For example, Angela Smith, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, presented a study showing that including patients in the identification of possible research topics helps them feel engaged and more likely to participate in studies. Patients who are involved in advisory councils at the local hospital level are more likely to report having received high-quality care. And surveying patients on the goals of national health care policy helps them feel that the outcomes are more equitable.

As a small-town urologist who spends his days in the trenches of urology, I think the next time my group considers participating in new cancer research, I may talk to the local cancer support group first. If Dr. Smith’s data are correct, not only would our patients be better served, but we would also have an easier time filling the trial!

The 2023 AUA conference is going to be held in Chicago next spring. I hope to see you there!

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

The annual meeting of the American Urological Association took place recently at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans. A common theme among attendees was that, although Zoom is a wonderful tool to disseminate information, something about physically attending a conference makes the meeting more rewarding and productive. Hundreds of talks and abstracts were presented over the 4 days in New Orleans; below is a summary of what I found to be the key scientific highlights.

1. Updates to the AUA’s guidelines for management of localized kidney cancer

The AUA’s recommendations for the treatment of localized kidney cancer have changed dramatically over the past few decades. Gone are the days of simply removing the entire kidney every time a mass is found. Today, a partial nephrectomy is preferred in most situations.

Our understanding that the prevalence of familial kidney cancer is much higher than previously thought has led to a change in the guidelines regarding which patients should receive genetic counseling. For the first time, the guidelines include the use of adjuvant medical treatment, such as pembrolizumab. A 2021 study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed a survival benefit for patients with high-risk disease who receive such therapies, so it›s not surprising that such treatments are now recommended.

The development of new second- and third-generation gadolinium contrast agents that spare the kidneys has dramatically increased the role for MRIs for patients with severe or even end-stage renal disease. As a result, the guidelines were updated to recommend the use of these agents. The role of a renal biopsy, which has always been limited, given the ability of cross-sectional imaging to diagnosis this disease, has further been constrained and should now be performed only when the results would clearly change a clinical decision, such as whether or not the lesion in question is a metastasis.

2. New and better ureteroscope technology

No one likes kidney stones, not the patient who deals with the incredible pain, nor the surgeon who has to remove them, given that these cases often present in the wee hours of the morning. The preferred surgical approach has changed dramatically over the past decade, moving away from extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy toward flexible ureteroscope-based technology, which has a higher clearance rate and is more widely and more immediately available. Flexible ureteroscopy has been held back by technological barriers, including limited scope deflection and low laser power. The exceptionally high cost of repair and the tendency of the instruments to break haven’t helped, either. Although single-use ureteroscopes have been available for some time, it wasn’t until the recently introduced second-generation scopes became widely available that they have become popular. These new scopes have small external diameters, great optics, and can easily be used. Newer high-powered lasers and the change from holmium:YAG-based lasers to thulium technology is greatly increasing the size of stones that can be safely addressed ureteroscopically. The cost analysis of single-use technology versus reusable scopes tends to be site dependent but can be appealing in certain situations. Also, on the technology forefront, a new robotically assisted ureteroscope is being introduced that offers the chance for improved intrapelvic mobility and better ergonomics for the surgeon.

3. New options for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

Since the guidelines were last updated in 2017, the definitive management of localized prostate cancer has changed dramatically. Although radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy remain the preferred options for men who choose treatment for their disease, the updated guidelines state that active surveillance is now the preferred approach for men with low-risk cancers.

Although the preferred surveillance protocol is still being debated, the consensus is that almost all men with low-risk disease can be safely monitored for some period. The imaging technology available to monitor patients is also radically changing with the rollout of prostate-specific membrane antigen–based PET technology. The increased sensitivity and specificity of this modality opens the door not only for better up-front staging of newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer but also may allow clinicians to earlier identify and treat men with metastatic disease. The guidelines for the first time address the use of genetic markers to individualize treatment of men with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Exactly which treatments these patients need is still being debated, but the ability to use patient-specific genetic mutation information to customize treatment is potentially groundbreaking.

4. New treatment options for patients with high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) refractory to bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy

Patients with NMIBC who do not respond to BCG therapy are in a tough position. Cystectomy remains the preferred option as a second-line strategy, but the procedure has a complication rate approaching 30%. Further, many patients are not willing to have their bladder removed because of the life-altering changes that go along with having an urostomy or a neobladder. While intravesical treatments such as valrubicin, docetaxel, or gemcitabine have been available for many years, the success rates of those options are limited. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved the use of the immunotherapy-based treatment pembrolizumab. While none of these options is perfect, the fact that we now have at least some alternatives is a huge step in the right direction.

5. It’s all about the patient: Involving patients in designing the health care delivery system

Although it seems like an obvious concept, patients themselves have traditionally not been involved in designing the health care delivery system on which they rely. Research presented at the AUA shows that many health care outcomes improve when patients are actively involved in the process. For example, Angela Smith, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, presented a study showing that including patients in the identification of possible research topics helps them feel engaged and more likely to participate in studies. Patients who are involved in advisory councils at the local hospital level are more likely to report having received high-quality care. And surveying patients on the goals of national health care policy helps them feel that the outcomes are more equitable.

As a small-town urologist who spends his days in the trenches of urology, I think the next time my group considers participating in new cancer research, I may talk to the local cancer support group first. If Dr. Smith’s data are correct, not only would our patients be better served, but we would also have an easier time filling the trial!

The 2023 AUA conference is going to be held in Chicago next spring. I hope to see you there!

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

Two major medical groups strengthened their recommendations for active surveillance (AS) for patients with low-risk prostate cancer and for the first time recommended the approach for some patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Experts hailed the new guidelines, released May 10 by the American Urological Association (AUA) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) as a boon for patients with low-risk to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancers.

“The guideline is unequivocal that AS is the preferred management option for the majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer,” panel chair James A. Eastham, MD, Peter T. Scardino Chair in Oncology and chief of urology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview.

The new guideline is the first guideline for localized prostate cancer since 2017.

In the new document, guideline writers merged low-risk patients and very-low-risk patients into a single category of “low-risk.” Dr. Eastham said a distinction between very-low-risk and low-risk is inconsequential since the treatment for the two groups of patients is identical.

The 2022 guideline for the first time makes AS the recommended treatment for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer, he said. The document also provides guidance on how such patients should be selected for AS.

Most research suggests that as many as 40% of patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer have low-risk disease. Favorable intermediate-risk cancer represents 10%-15% of newly diagnosed patients, said Todd Morgan, MD, the Jack Lapides, MD, Research Professor and chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Morgan, who was not on the AUA/ASTRO panel, called the new recommendations “a very strong update compared to the guideline from 5 years ago.”

The guideline has been pared back some from 2017 to include fewer statements, but it covers several key clinical trials that have appeared over the past 6 years to strengthen the evidence base for the document, he said.

“I would say that we still have to acknowledge that many statements are based on ‘expert opinion’ rather than high-level evidence, which highlights the continued need for well-conducted studies that prove or disprove some of these statements,” Dr. Morgan added.
 

Patients weighed in

This year, AUA’s advocacy group urged patients to comment on the proposed guideline.

Rick Davis, founder of the AnCan Foundation, a virtual support network for prostate cancer and other diseases, thanked the groups for acknowledging the value of peer support and virtual support groups.

“AnCan congratulates the AUA/ASTRO on endorsing the proper role for the Active Surveillance protocol to manage early low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and also their qualified and well-supported warnings against focal therapy,” Mr. Davis, who reviewed the guideline, said in an email. “We are, however, disappointed at the lack of a recommendation to provide comprehensive counseling when hormone therapy is prescribed.”

James Schraidt, another patient reviewer for AnCan, said that on balance, the 2022 guideline was an improvement over 2017 and will benefit patients.

He praised AUA/ASTRO for, at the urging of patient reviewers, introducing the “cribriform” and “intraductal” pathology patterns into the guideline for the first time as risk factors.

But he criticized the doctor groups for “a less than fulsome and orderly discussion of the use of MRI. It is not mentioned as a tool that should be used prior to initial biopsy, leaving the door wide open to random biopsies. The recommended role of MRI in AS monitoring was unclear.” He also said the panel should have reviewed micro-ultrasound, an emerging technology, that can be used by itself or to complement MRIs.

Many of the AUA/ASTRO guideline changes involve semantic issues – but which experts said nevertheless were important nuances.

Dr. Eastham said the AUA/ASTRO panel debated and finally settled on the word “preferred” for AS rather than “recommended” or “strongly recommended.”

“This is a very strong statement from the AUA/ASTRO,” Dr. Morgan said. “The semantics are definitely important, but ... ’preferred’ is actually a strong word. For the AUA, what’s really important is the ‘strong recommendation’ and Grade A level of evidence.”

Dr. Morgan also observed that the AS recommendations for patients with low-risk prostate cancer are stronger in the new AUA guideline than those in the latest recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which he helped write.

The AUA/ASTRO guideline states that AS is preferred for patients with low-risk cancer, whereas in the NCCN guideline the language is: “preferred for most patients with low-risk disease cancer,” Dr. Morgan said.

“All of these statements ultimately acknowledge what I think that the vast majority of experts agree on – a small proportion of patients with low-risk prostate cancer may appropriately be recommended to undergo primary therapy,” he said.

Dr. Eastham said the goal of the guideline is to persuade surgeons to emphasize that AS is the best choice for most patients with low-risk prostate cancer: “The hope is that surgeons read the guideline. The guideline is definitive in recommending AS in low-risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Eastham said the new guideline also does the following:

• Further endorses shared decisionmaking, with the understanding that for a decision to be made, both patient and physician need appropriate information regarding the risk posed by the cancer and the risk posed by treatment;
• Endorses selective use of somatic genetic testing when the data are needed for shared decisionmaking;
• Updates a section on genetic testing in patients considered to be at high risk for a germline mutation;
• Updates pretreatment evaluation for patients opting for treatment, primarily the role of imaging and how the evolution of next-generation imaging – such as , a new type of nuclear medicine procedure, in clinically localized prostate cancer;
• Addresses aspects of both radiotherapy and surgery, including nerve sparing, pelvic lymph node dissection, and adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy, such as chemotherapy or hormone therapy delivered before or after the primary treatment. Dr. Eastham said the “significant evolution” in how best to provide radiotherapy resulted in several changes to this section.

No relevant financial relationships have been reported.

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

Two major medical groups strengthened their recommendations for active surveillance (AS) for patients with low-risk prostate cancer and for the first time recommended the approach for some patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Experts hailed the new guidelines, released May 10 by the American Urological Association (AUA) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) as a boon for patients with low-risk to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancers.

“The guideline is unequivocal that AS is the preferred management option for the majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer,” panel chair James A. Eastham, MD, Peter T. Scardino Chair in Oncology and chief of urology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview.

The new guideline is the first guideline for localized prostate cancer since 2017.

In the new document, guideline writers merged low-risk patients and very-low-risk patients into a single category of “low-risk.” Dr. Eastham said a distinction between very-low-risk and low-risk is inconsequential since the treatment for the two groups of patients is identical.

The 2022 guideline for the first time makes AS the recommended treatment for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer, he said. The document also provides guidance on how such patients should be selected for AS.

Most research suggests that as many as 40% of patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer have low-risk disease. Favorable intermediate-risk cancer represents 10%-15% of newly diagnosed patients, said Todd Morgan, MD, the Jack Lapides, MD, Research Professor and chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Morgan, who was not on the AUA/ASTRO panel, called the new recommendations “a very strong update compared to the guideline from 5 years ago.”

The guideline has been pared back some from 2017 to include fewer statements, but it covers several key clinical trials that have appeared over the past 6 years to strengthen the evidence base for the document, he said.

“I would say that we still have to acknowledge that many statements are based on ‘expert opinion’ rather than high-level evidence, which highlights the continued need for well-conducted studies that prove or disprove some of these statements,” Dr. Morgan added.
 

Patients weighed in

This year, AUA’s advocacy group urged patients to comment on the proposed guideline.

Rick Davis, founder of the AnCan Foundation, a virtual support network for prostate cancer and other diseases, thanked the groups for acknowledging the value of peer support and virtual support groups.

“AnCan congratulates the AUA/ASTRO on endorsing the proper role for the Active Surveillance protocol to manage early low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and also their qualified and well-supported warnings against focal therapy,” Mr. Davis, who reviewed the guideline, said in an email. “We are, however, disappointed at the lack of a recommendation to provide comprehensive counseling when hormone therapy is prescribed.”

James Schraidt, another patient reviewer for AnCan, said that on balance, the 2022 guideline was an improvement over 2017 and will benefit patients.

He praised AUA/ASTRO for, at the urging of patient reviewers, introducing the “cribriform” and “intraductal” pathology patterns into the guideline for the first time as risk factors.

But he criticized the doctor groups for “a less than fulsome and orderly discussion of the use of MRI. It is not mentioned as a tool that should be used prior to initial biopsy, leaving the door wide open to random biopsies. The recommended role of MRI in AS monitoring was unclear.” He also said the panel should have reviewed micro-ultrasound, an emerging technology, that can be used by itself or to complement MRIs.

Many of the AUA/ASTRO guideline changes involve semantic issues – but which experts said nevertheless were important nuances.

Dr. Eastham said the AUA/ASTRO panel debated and finally settled on the word “preferred” for AS rather than “recommended” or “strongly recommended.”

“This is a very strong statement from the AUA/ASTRO,” Dr. Morgan said. “The semantics are definitely important, but ... ’preferred’ is actually a strong word. For the AUA, what’s really important is the ‘strong recommendation’ and Grade A level of evidence.”

Dr. Morgan also observed that the AS recommendations for patients with low-risk prostate cancer are stronger in the new AUA guideline than those in the latest recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which he helped write.

The AUA/ASTRO guideline states that AS is preferred for patients with low-risk cancer, whereas in the NCCN guideline the language is: “preferred for most patients with low-risk disease cancer,” Dr. Morgan said.

“All of these statements ultimately acknowledge what I think that the vast majority of experts agree on – a small proportion of patients with low-risk prostate cancer may appropriately be recommended to undergo primary therapy,” he said.

Dr. Eastham said the goal of the guideline is to persuade surgeons to emphasize that AS is the best choice for most patients with low-risk prostate cancer: “The hope is that surgeons read the guideline. The guideline is definitive in recommending AS in low-risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Eastham said the new guideline also does the following:

• Further endorses shared decisionmaking, with the understanding that for a decision to be made, both patient and physician need appropriate information regarding the risk posed by the cancer and the risk posed by treatment;
• Endorses selective use of somatic genetic testing when the data are needed for shared decisionmaking;
• Updates a section on genetic testing in patients considered to be at high risk for a germline mutation;
• Updates pretreatment evaluation for patients opting for treatment, primarily the role of imaging and how the evolution of next-generation imaging – such as , a new type of nuclear medicine procedure, in clinically localized prostate cancer;
• Addresses aspects of both radiotherapy and surgery, including nerve sparing, pelvic lymph node dissection, and adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy, such as chemotherapy or hormone therapy delivered before or after the primary treatment. Dr. Eastham said the “significant evolution” in how best to provide radiotherapy resulted in several changes to this section.

No relevant financial relationships have been reported.

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

Two major medical groups strengthened their recommendations for active surveillance (AS) for patients with low-risk prostate cancer and for the first time recommended the approach for some patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Experts hailed the new guidelines, released May 10 by the American Urological Association (AUA) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) as a boon for patients with low-risk to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancers.

“The guideline is unequivocal that AS is the preferred management option for the majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer,” panel chair James A. Eastham, MD, Peter T. Scardino Chair in Oncology and chief of urology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview.

The new guideline is the first guideline for localized prostate cancer since 2017.

In the new document, guideline writers merged low-risk patients and very-low-risk patients into a single category of “low-risk.” Dr. Eastham said a distinction between very-low-risk and low-risk is inconsequential since the treatment for the two groups of patients is identical.

The 2022 guideline for the first time makes AS the recommended treatment for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer, he said. The document also provides guidance on how such patients should be selected for AS.

Most research suggests that as many as 40% of patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer have low-risk disease. Favorable intermediate-risk cancer represents 10%-15% of newly diagnosed patients, said Todd Morgan, MD, the Jack Lapides, MD, Research Professor and chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Morgan, who was not on the AUA/ASTRO panel, called the new recommendations “a very strong update compared to the guideline from 5 years ago.”

The guideline has been pared back some from 2017 to include fewer statements, but it covers several key clinical trials that have appeared over the past 6 years to strengthen the evidence base for the document, he said.

“I would say that we still have to acknowledge that many statements are based on ‘expert opinion’ rather than high-level evidence, which highlights the continued need for well-conducted studies that prove or disprove some of these statements,” Dr. Morgan added.
 

Patients weighed in

This year, AUA’s advocacy group urged patients to comment on the proposed guideline.

Rick Davis, founder of the AnCan Foundation, a virtual support network for prostate cancer and other diseases, thanked the groups for acknowledging the value of peer support and virtual support groups.

“AnCan congratulates the AUA/ASTRO on endorsing the proper role for the Active Surveillance protocol to manage early low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and also their qualified and well-supported warnings against focal therapy,” Mr. Davis, who reviewed the guideline, said in an email. “We are, however, disappointed at the lack of a recommendation to provide comprehensive counseling when hormone therapy is prescribed.”

James Schraidt, another patient reviewer for AnCan, said that on balance, the 2022 guideline was an improvement over 2017 and will benefit patients.

He praised AUA/ASTRO for, at the urging of patient reviewers, introducing the “cribriform” and “intraductal” pathology patterns into the guideline for the first time as risk factors.

But he criticized the doctor groups for “a less than fulsome and orderly discussion of the use of MRI. It is not mentioned as a tool that should be used prior to initial biopsy, leaving the door wide open to random biopsies. The recommended role of MRI in AS monitoring was unclear.” He also said the panel should have reviewed micro-ultrasound, an emerging technology, that can be used by itself or to complement MRIs.

Many of the AUA/ASTRO guideline changes involve semantic issues – but which experts said nevertheless were important nuances.

Dr. Eastham said the AUA/ASTRO panel debated and finally settled on the word “preferred” for AS rather than “recommended” or “strongly recommended.”

“This is a very strong statement from the AUA/ASTRO,” Dr. Morgan said. “The semantics are definitely important, but ... ’preferred’ is actually a strong word. For the AUA, what’s really important is the ‘strong recommendation’ and Grade A level of evidence.”

Dr. Morgan also observed that the AS recommendations for patients with low-risk prostate cancer are stronger in the new AUA guideline than those in the latest recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which he helped write.

The AUA/ASTRO guideline states that AS is preferred for patients with low-risk cancer, whereas in the NCCN guideline the language is: “preferred for most patients with low-risk disease cancer,” Dr. Morgan said.

“All of these statements ultimately acknowledge what I think that the vast majority of experts agree on – a small proportion of patients with low-risk prostate cancer may appropriately be recommended to undergo primary therapy,” he said.

Dr. Eastham said the goal of the guideline is to persuade surgeons to emphasize that AS is the best choice for most patients with low-risk prostate cancer: “The hope is that surgeons read the guideline. The guideline is definitive in recommending AS in low-risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Eastham said the new guideline also does the following:

• Further endorses shared decisionmaking, with the understanding that for a decision to be made, both patient and physician need appropriate information regarding the risk posed by the cancer and the risk posed by treatment;
• Endorses selective use of somatic genetic testing when the data are needed for shared decisionmaking;
• Updates a section on genetic testing in patients considered to be at high risk for a germline mutation;
• Updates pretreatment evaluation for patients opting for treatment, primarily the role of imaging and how the evolution of next-generation imaging – such as , a new type of nuclear medicine procedure, in clinically localized prostate cancer;
• Addresses aspects of both radiotherapy and surgery, including nerve sparing, pelvic lymph node dissection, and adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy, such as chemotherapy or hormone therapy delivered before or after the primary treatment. Dr. Eastham said the “significant evolution” in how best to provide radiotherapy resulted in several changes to this section.

No relevant financial relationships have been reported.

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

In April, the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed a knotty claim against a local doctor and hospital accused of concealing a woman’s renal cancer, according to a story in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, among other news outlets.

In 2004, Linda Berry visited Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids for an unspecified ailment. At the hospital, Ms. Berry underwent a CT scan, which revealed a benign cyst on her right kidney. According to the suit later filed by her family, she was not informed about the growth during this visit — nor during four successive visits to the same hospital over the next decade.

The first of these four visits occurred in 2006, when Ms. Berry was again seen at Mercy, this time for a urinary tract infection. Despite undergoing a second renal scan, Ms. Berry was not informed of the mass on her right kidney.

Three years later, in October 2009, she arrived with her daughter at the Mercy emergency department (ED) complaining of abdominal pain. She was examined by Paul Grossmann, MD, a general surgeon. Ms. Berry underwent an abdominal scan that showed her renal abnormality. Dr. Grossmann diagnosed her as having constipation and released her from the ED. According to the family, he made no mention of the mass on her right kidney.

En route home, however, Ms. Berry and her daughter received a call from a resident under Dr. Grossmann’s supervision. Returning to the hospital, Ms. Berry learned that her constipation was actually colitis. She was prescribed an antibiotic and was again released from the ED. Her post-release instructions made no mention of the now larger mass on her kidney.

Two days later, still complaining of abdominal pain, Ms. Berry returned to the Mercy ED. Examined by another ED doctor, she underwent a fourth CT scan, which also showed the kidney mass. A radiology report urged Dr. Grossmann, her previous physician, to pursue the matter in order to rule out renal cancer. Dr. Grossmann followed up with Berry’s primary care doctor. In doing so, though, he mentioned only the patient’s ongoing colitis, not her kidney mass, according to the plaintiffs’ claim.

In 2016, following a fall, Ms. Berry returned yet again to the Mercy ED, this time with a broken arm. During her treatment, she underwent a fifth CT scan, which revealed the same kidney mass. This time, though, a discharge nurse mentioned the abnormality to Ms. Berry — allegedly the first time in more than a decade that a medical professional had alerted her to the potential problem.

The alert may have been too late, however. Ms. Berry was diagnosed shortly thereafter with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. She died on May 22, 2019.

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

In April, the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed a knotty claim against a local doctor and hospital accused of concealing a woman’s renal cancer, according to a story in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, among other news outlets.

In 2004, Linda Berry visited Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids for an unspecified ailment. At the hospital, Ms. Berry underwent a CT scan, which revealed a benign cyst on her right kidney. According to the suit later filed by her family, she was not informed about the growth during this visit — nor during four successive visits to the same hospital over the next decade.

The first of these four visits occurred in 2006, when Ms. Berry was again seen at Mercy, this time for a urinary tract infection. Despite undergoing a second renal scan, Ms. Berry was not informed of the mass on her right kidney.

Three years later, in October 2009, she arrived with her daughter at the Mercy emergency department (ED) complaining of abdominal pain. She was examined by Paul Grossmann, MD, a general surgeon. Ms. Berry underwent an abdominal scan that showed her renal abnormality. Dr. Grossmann diagnosed her as having constipation and released her from the ED. According to the family, he made no mention of the mass on her right kidney.

En route home, however, Ms. Berry and her daughter received a call from a resident under Dr. Grossmann’s supervision. Returning to the hospital, Ms. Berry learned that her constipation was actually colitis. She was prescribed an antibiotic and was again released from the ED. Her post-release instructions made no mention of the now larger mass on her kidney.

Two days later, still complaining of abdominal pain, Ms. Berry returned to the Mercy ED. Examined by another ED doctor, she underwent a fourth CT scan, which also showed the kidney mass. A radiology report urged Dr. Grossmann, her previous physician, to pursue the matter in order to rule out renal cancer. Dr. Grossmann followed up with Berry’s primary care doctor. In doing so, though, he mentioned only the patient’s ongoing colitis, not her kidney mass, according to the plaintiffs’ claim.

In 2016, following a fall, Ms. Berry returned yet again to the Mercy ED, this time with a broken arm. During her treatment, she underwent a fifth CT scan, which revealed the same kidney mass. This time, though, a discharge nurse mentioned the abnormality to Ms. Berry — allegedly the first time in more than a decade that a medical professional had alerted her to the potential problem.

The alert may have been too late, however. Ms. Berry was diagnosed shortly thereafter with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. She died on May 22, 2019.

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

In April, the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed a knotty claim against a local doctor and hospital accused of concealing a woman’s renal cancer, according to a story in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, among other news outlets.

In 2004, Linda Berry visited Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids for an unspecified ailment. At the hospital, Ms. Berry underwent a CT scan, which revealed a benign cyst on her right kidney. According to the suit later filed by her family, she was not informed about the growth during this visit — nor during four successive visits to the same hospital over the next decade.

The first of these four visits occurred in 2006, when Ms. Berry was again seen at Mercy, this time for a urinary tract infection. Despite undergoing a second renal scan, Ms. Berry was not informed of the mass on her right kidney.

Three years later, in October 2009, she arrived with her daughter at the Mercy emergency department (ED) complaining of abdominal pain. She was examined by Paul Grossmann, MD, a general surgeon. Ms. Berry underwent an abdominal scan that showed her renal abnormality. Dr. Grossmann diagnosed her as having constipation and released her from the ED. According to the family, he made no mention of the mass on her right kidney.

En route home, however, Ms. Berry and her daughter received a call from a resident under Dr. Grossmann’s supervision. Returning to the hospital, Ms. Berry learned that her constipation was actually colitis. She was prescribed an antibiotic and was again released from the ED. Her post-release instructions made no mention of the now larger mass on her kidney.

Two days later, still complaining of abdominal pain, Ms. Berry returned to the Mercy ED. Examined by another ED doctor, she underwent a fourth CT scan, which also showed the kidney mass. A radiology report urged Dr. Grossmann, her previous physician, to pursue the matter in order to rule out renal cancer. Dr. Grossmann followed up with Berry’s primary care doctor. In doing so, though, he mentioned only the patient’s ongoing colitis, not her kidney mass, according to the plaintiffs’ claim.

In 2016, following a fall, Ms. Berry returned yet again to the Mercy ED, this time with a broken arm. During her treatment, she underwent a fifth CT scan, which revealed the same kidney mass. This time, though, a discharge nurse mentioned the abnormality to Ms. Berry — allegedly the first time in more than a decade that a medical professional had alerted her to the potential problem.

The alert may have been too late, however. Ms. Berry was diagnosed shortly thereafter with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. She died on May 22, 2019.

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

The number of men with prostate cancer who opted for active surveillance (AS) doubled nationally between 2014 and 2021, according to experts who say the dramatic increase reflects a growing understanding among both researchers and patients that low-grade prostate tumors can be safely watched for years without requiring treatment.

Roughly 60% of men eligible for AS chose that approach in 2021, up from 27% in 2014 and less than 10% in 2010, according to panel member Matthew Cooperberg, MD, MPH, of University of California, San Francisco. He presented the data for a panel of the American Urological Association (AUA) at the group’s annual meeting in New Orleans.

Dr. Cooperberg attributed the hike in AS rates in the United States to the growing scientific literature and guidelines supportive of the approach, which calls for periodic assessments of low-risk tumors but no surgery, radiation, or other therapies. In Canada and parts of Europe, approximately 80%-90% of men who are eligible for AS choose that approach, experts said.

Earlier this month, the AUA and the American Society for Radiation Oncology released the strongest guidelines to date supporting AS for low-risk patients, and, for the first time, for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), concluding that the benefits of the test did not outweigh the risks, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer.

Urologists blamed the USPSTF policy for a decline in PSA screening and an uptick in the diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer.

Dr. Cooperberg said the shift served as “a bit of a wake-up call for at least a segment of the urology community that if we didn’t fix the overtreatment problem, we would never retake the chunks of the conversation about screening and early detection.”

In 2018, following protests by urologists and patient advocates, the USPSTF revised its statements to include shared decisionmaking for PSA testing in men aged 55-69 years, reflecting emerging evidence of longer-term benefits and widespread adoption of active surveillance after detection of low-risk disease.

Laurence Klotz, MD, the University of Toronto researcher who named and helped develop AS 30 years ago, and who was not on the AUA panel, said other factors also help to explain the growing interest in AS. These include an increasing consensus among experts on the value of the strategy, mounting public awareness of its benefits, the efforts of support and advocacy groups, and the arrival of more sophisticated imaging and biomarkers that help further refine risk.

“We’re shrinking the gray zone,” Dr. Klotz said. “Remaining resistance to AS is due to legitimate concerns about missing significant cancer and losing a patient to metastatic disease, and perhaps financial drivers, particularly with less invasive technologies like radiation and focal therapy.”

The national rate for AS increased from 26.5% in 2014, when data were first reported through the AUA’s AQUA data registry. AQUA’s data comes from electronic health records and included 27,289 patients with newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer.

In 2014, radical prostatectomy was the leading treatment in the low-risk population, with 29.7% of these patients overall opting for surgery, edging out external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and AS, at 28.2% and 26.5% respectively.

In 2015, AS and EBRT overtook surgery, and by 2021, 59.6% of low-risk patients had chosen AS, followed by 20.9% for EBRT and 15.8% for prostatectomy.
 

Aiming higher

William Catalona, MD, a panel member from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the AUA’s Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Project has set a goal of 80% uptake of AS in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dr. Catalona, an early critic of AS, called that figure “optimal and realistic,” something that should happen “as soon as possible.”

Dr. Catalona said the 80% benchmark matches acceptance of AS within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals.

However, Dr. Klotz said the American culture of treatment, which is driven at least in part by financial incentives on the part of physicians, may prevent the growth of AS above 80% in this country.

Dr. Cooperberg said financial incentives are real. “I think it’s a small minority of docs that are heavily driven by the financial incentive, but it certainly exists,” he told this news organization. When you look at the extreme variation of active surveillance rates, there is no question that factors like reimbursement are going to play a role.”

Dr. Catalona, who through the first decade of the 2000s regularly debated Dr. Klotz about the concept of AS, said he today recommends AS when appropriate.

“The variability of AS adoption among practices and physicians varies from 0% to 100%. Therefore, some are too ‘tight’ in recommending AS and some are ‘too loose.’ I do not attempt to steer [patients] into treatment unless I believe that would be their best option. Nevertheless, some opt for surveillance when I believe they are making a mistake, and some opt for treatment when I believe surveillance would have been a rational choice.”

Dr. Cooperberg agreed that a personalized approach is important and that both physicians and patients should be flexible in their decisionmaking. “There will always be some men with low-grade disease who should get immediate treatment. For example, a young man with very high-volume disease, even if it’s Gleason 3+3,” he said. “If it is clearly inevitable that he’s going to need treatment, he could reasonably make a decision to get immediate treatment.”

Dr. Cooperberg, Dr. Klotz, and Dr. Catalona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of men with prostate cancer who opted for active surveillance (AS) doubled nationally between 2014 and 2021, according to experts who say the dramatic increase reflects a growing understanding among both researchers and patients that low-grade prostate tumors can be safely watched for years without requiring treatment.

Roughly 60% of men eligible for AS chose that approach in 2021, up from 27% in 2014 and less than 10% in 2010, according to panel member Matthew Cooperberg, MD, MPH, of University of California, San Francisco. He presented the data for a panel of the American Urological Association (AUA) at the group’s annual meeting in New Orleans.

Dr. Cooperberg attributed the hike in AS rates in the United States to the growing scientific literature and guidelines supportive of the approach, which calls for periodic assessments of low-risk tumors but no surgery, radiation, or other therapies. In Canada and parts of Europe, approximately 80%-90% of men who are eligible for AS choose that approach, experts said.

Earlier this month, the AUA and the American Society for Radiation Oncology released the strongest guidelines to date supporting AS for low-risk patients, and, for the first time, for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), concluding that the benefits of the test did not outweigh the risks, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer.

Urologists blamed the USPSTF policy for a decline in PSA screening and an uptick in the diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer.

Dr. Cooperberg said the shift served as “a bit of a wake-up call for at least a segment of the urology community that if we didn’t fix the overtreatment problem, we would never retake the chunks of the conversation about screening and early detection.”

In 2018, following protests by urologists and patient advocates, the USPSTF revised its statements to include shared decisionmaking for PSA testing in men aged 55-69 years, reflecting emerging evidence of longer-term benefits and widespread adoption of active surveillance after detection of low-risk disease.

Laurence Klotz, MD, the University of Toronto researcher who named and helped develop AS 30 years ago, and who was not on the AUA panel, said other factors also help to explain the growing interest in AS. These include an increasing consensus among experts on the value of the strategy, mounting public awareness of its benefits, the efforts of support and advocacy groups, and the arrival of more sophisticated imaging and biomarkers that help further refine risk.

“We’re shrinking the gray zone,” Dr. Klotz said. “Remaining resistance to AS is due to legitimate concerns about missing significant cancer and losing a patient to metastatic disease, and perhaps financial drivers, particularly with less invasive technologies like radiation and focal therapy.”

The national rate for AS increased from 26.5% in 2014, when data were first reported through the AUA’s AQUA data registry. AQUA’s data comes from electronic health records and included 27,289 patients with newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer.

In 2014, radical prostatectomy was the leading treatment in the low-risk population, with 29.7% of these patients overall opting for surgery, edging out external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and AS, at 28.2% and 26.5% respectively.

In 2015, AS and EBRT overtook surgery, and by 2021, 59.6% of low-risk patients had chosen AS, followed by 20.9% for EBRT and 15.8% for prostatectomy.
 

Aiming higher

William Catalona, MD, a panel member from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the AUA’s Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Project has set a goal of 80% uptake of AS in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dr. Catalona, an early critic of AS, called that figure “optimal and realistic,” something that should happen “as soon as possible.”

Dr. Catalona said the 80% benchmark matches acceptance of AS within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals.

However, Dr. Klotz said the American culture of treatment, which is driven at least in part by financial incentives on the part of physicians, may prevent the growth of AS above 80% in this country.

Dr. Cooperberg said financial incentives are real. “I think it’s a small minority of docs that are heavily driven by the financial incentive, but it certainly exists,” he told this news organization. When you look at the extreme variation of active surveillance rates, there is no question that factors like reimbursement are going to play a role.”

Dr. Catalona, who through the first decade of the 2000s regularly debated Dr. Klotz about the concept of AS, said he today recommends AS when appropriate.

“The variability of AS adoption among practices and physicians varies from 0% to 100%. Therefore, some are too ‘tight’ in recommending AS and some are ‘too loose.’ I do not attempt to steer [patients] into treatment unless I believe that would be their best option. Nevertheless, some opt for surveillance when I believe they are making a mistake, and some opt for treatment when I believe surveillance would have been a rational choice.”

Dr. Cooperberg agreed that a personalized approach is important and that both physicians and patients should be flexible in their decisionmaking. “There will always be some men with low-grade disease who should get immediate treatment. For example, a young man with very high-volume disease, even if it’s Gleason 3+3,” he said. “If it is clearly inevitable that he’s going to need treatment, he could reasonably make a decision to get immediate treatment.”

Dr. Cooperberg, Dr. Klotz, and Dr. Catalona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of men with prostate cancer who opted for active surveillance (AS) doubled nationally between 2014 and 2021, according to experts who say the dramatic increase reflects a growing understanding among both researchers and patients that low-grade prostate tumors can be safely watched for years without requiring treatment.

Roughly 60% of men eligible for AS chose that approach in 2021, up from 27% in 2014 and less than 10% in 2010, according to panel member Matthew Cooperberg, MD, MPH, of University of California, San Francisco. He presented the data for a panel of the American Urological Association (AUA) at the group’s annual meeting in New Orleans.

Dr. Cooperberg attributed the hike in AS rates in the United States to the growing scientific literature and guidelines supportive of the approach, which calls for periodic assessments of low-risk tumors but no surgery, radiation, or other therapies. In Canada and parts of Europe, approximately 80%-90% of men who are eligible for AS choose that approach, experts said.

Earlier this month, the AUA and the American Society for Radiation Oncology released the strongest guidelines to date supporting AS for low-risk patients, and, for the first time, for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), concluding that the benefits of the test did not outweigh the risks, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer.

Urologists blamed the USPSTF policy for a decline in PSA screening and an uptick in the diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer.

Dr. Cooperberg said the shift served as “a bit of a wake-up call for at least a segment of the urology community that if we didn’t fix the overtreatment problem, we would never retake the chunks of the conversation about screening and early detection.”

In 2018, following protests by urologists and patient advocates, the USPSTF revised its statements to include shared decisionmaking for PSA testing in men aged 55-69 years, reflecting emerging evidence of longer-term benefits and widespread adoption of active surveillance after detection of low-risk disease.

Laurence Klotz, MD, the University of Toronto researcher who named and helped develop AS 30 years ago, and who was not on the AUA panel, said other factors also help to explain the growing interest in AS. These include an increasing consensus among experts on the value of the strategy, mounting public awareness of its benefits, the efforts of support and advocacy groups, and the arrival of more sophisticated imaging and biomarkers that help further refine risk.

“We’re shrinking the gray zone,” Dr. Klotz said. “Remaining resistance to AS is due to legitimate concerns about missing significant cancer and losing a patient to metastatic disease, and perhaps financial drivers, particularly with less invasive technologies like radiation and focal therapy.”

The national rate for AS increased from 26.5% in 2014, when data were first reported through the AUA’s AQUA data registry. AQUA’s data comes from electronic health records and included 27,289 patients with newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer.

In 2014, radical prostatectomy was the leading treatment in the low-risk population, with 29.7% of these patients overall opting for surgery, edging out external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and AS, at 28.2% and 26.5% respectively.

In 2015, AS and EBRT overtook surgery, and by 2021, 59.6% of low-risk patients had chosen AS, followed by 20.9% for EBRT and 15.8% for prostatectomy.
 

Aiming higher

William Catalona, MD, a panel member from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the AUA’s Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Project has set a goal of 80% uptake of AS in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dr. Catalona, an early critic of AS, called that figure “optimal and realistic,” something that should happen “as soon as possible.”

Dr. Catalona said the 80% benchmark matches acceptance of AS within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals.

However, Dr. Klotz said the American culture of treatment, which is driven at least in part by financial incentives on the part of physicians, may prevent the growth of AS above 80% in this country.

Dr. Cooperberg said financial incentives are real. “I think it’s a small minority of docs that are heavily driven by the financial incentive, but it certainly exists,” he told this news organization. When you look at the extreme variation of active surveillance rates, there is no question that factors like reimbursement are going to play a role.”

Dr. Catalona, who through the first decade of the 2000s regularly debated Dr. Klotz about the concept of AS, said he today recommends AS when appropriate.

“The variability of AS adoption among practices and physicians varies from 0% to 100%. Therefore, some are too ‘tight’ in recommending AS and some are ‘too loose.’ I do not attempt to steer [patients] into treatment unless I believe that would be their best option. Nevertheless, some opt for surveillance when I believe they are making a mistake, and some opt for treatment when I believe surveillance would have been a rational choice.”

Dr. Cooperberg agreed that a personalized approach is important and that both physicians and patients should be flexible in their decisionmaking. “There will always be some men with low-grade disease who should get immediate treatment. For example, a young man with very high-volume disease, even if it’s Gleason 3+3,” he said. “If it is clearly inevitable that he’s going to need treatment, he could reasonably make a decision to get immediate treatment.”

Dr. Cooperberg, Dr. Klotz, and Dr. Catalona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A team of experts is recommending that doctors forgo describing early, low-grade prostate tumors as “cancers” as a way to ease anxiety among patients and their families and reduce unnecessary treatment.

Physicians often advise that men with low-risk prostate tumors wait to see if the disease worsens – an approach called “active surveillance” – rather than rushing to treat the condition. After all, low-grade tumors rarely cause harm, and therapies such as radiation and surgery can carry serious side effects, including impotence and urinary leakage.

Yet doctors still label these lesions “cancer,” and as a result, some experts say, many men in the United States opt for treatment they don’t need.

In a new paper likely to stoke debate, experts from a range of disciplines, as well as one patient, argue that overtreatment could be reduced by removing the word “cancer” from low-risk disease. Tumors that rate 6 on the Gleason score (GS) cannot invade other organs but nonetheless scare patients into undergoing risky treatments, they argue. Fewer than 1% of men with GS6 prostate tumors experience metastatic disease or die from cancer within 15 years of the initial diagnosis, they report.

“No matter how much time a physician may spend downplaying the significance of a GS6 diagnosis or emphasizing the phrase low-risk, the words ‘you have cancer’ have a potent psychological effect on most men and their families,” they wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dropping the C word for low-risk tumors, which make up about half of 268,000 prostate cancer diagnoses annually in the United States, is not a new idea. An independent panel convened by the National Institutes of Health proposed just that in 2011.

However, clinician support for the shift appears to be growing, said Scott Eggener, MD, a urologic oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Chicago, and a coauthor of the new article.

Dr. Eggener said active surveillance has been increasing dramatically in the United States, to about 60% of patients with GS6. “We feel like the landscape is right now to be talking about this issue,” Dr. Eggener told this news organization.

Reducing unnecessary treatment, he and his coauthors argue, could reduce the cost of health care — and boost the benefit of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, which the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the moment deems small.

In addition, patients with prostate cancer diagnoses encounter increased risk of depression and suicide, disqualification or higher rates for life insurance, and questions from family and friends if they choose active surveillance over treatment – all of which might be ameliorated by a change in terminology.

The word “cancer” has been dropped from bladder, cervical, and thyroid conditions and prostate abnormalities that used to be classified as Gleason 2 through 5, they noted.
 

Keeping the status quo

But some physicians say GS6 doesn’t need a name change.

From a scientific standpoint, GS6 disease has molecular hallmarks of cancer, according to Jonathan Epstein, MD, professor of pathology, urology, and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More important, Dr. Epstein told Medscape, the classification does not guarantee that more serious cancer is not present, only that it has not been found yet in tissue samples.

Dr. Eggener acknowledged that while GS6 does have molecular markers associated with cancer – a fact that’s “challenging to reconcile with” – giving it another name “would still require surveillance, and since the window of opportunity for curing localized [prostate cancer] is typically measured in years or decades, evidence of histologic progression to a higher-grade cancer would far precede the potential time of future metastasis in the majority of cases.”

Still, Dr. Epstein worries that dropping the cancer designation may lead some patients to forgo active surveillance, which involves repeated imaging and biopsies to check for worse disease. Without such monitoring, he said, “if they do have higher grade cancer that’s unsampled, it will pose a threat to their life.”

Gleason 6 tumors “may progress, some significantly, or be incompletely sampled at the time of diagnosis. Both clinicians and patients need to understand such risk,” Peter Carroll, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who is critical of the proposed name change, told this news organization.

Regardless of what it’s called, Gleason 6 disease warrants close monitoring, said Joe Gallo, a 77-year-old Pennsylvania man whose high-risk cancer was detected during active surveillance. “If I had taken a laid-back, or less, approach” to monitoring, Mr. Gallo said, “necessary treatment may have been delayed and my condition may have become more serious.”

Some advocates say patients and their families need to be educated that cancer exists on a spectrum of severity.

Mark Lichty, 73, chairman of a support group called Active Surveillance Patients International, received a Gleason 6 diagnosis 17 years ago. He resisted treatment against medical advice, and the cancer never progressed.

Mr. Lichty said active surveillance has been more widely adopted in Sweden, where physicians assure patients that treatment is unnecessary and support systems exist. “Yes, a diagnosis of cancer is frightening,” he said in an interview. But “we can do a lot better in how we communicate the diagnosis.”

Dr. Eggener reported consulting or advisory roles with Sophiris Bio, Francis Medical, Insightec, Profound Medical, and Candel Therapeutics; speakers bureau at Janssen; and fees for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Janssen Biotech and Insightec; as well as an uncompensated relationship with Steba Biotech. The remaining coauthors reported several financial relationships, which are listed in the paper. Dr. Epstein and Dr. Carroll have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A team of experts is recommending that doctors forgo describing early, low-grade prostate tumors as “cancers” as a way to ease anxiety among patients and their families and reduce unnecessary treatment.

Physicians often advise that men with low-risk prostate tumors wait to see if the disease worsens – an approach called “active surveillance” – rather than rushing to treat the condition. After all, low-grade tumors rarely cause harm, and therapies such as radiation and surgery can carry serious side effects, including impotence and urinary leakage.

Yet doctors still label these lesions “cancer,” and as a result, some experts say, many men in the United States opt for treatment they don’t need.

In a new paper likely to stoke debate, experts from a range of disciplines, as well as one patient, argue that overtreatment could be reduced by removing the word “cancer” from low-risk disease. Tumors that rate 6 on the Gleason score (GS) cannot invade other organs but nonetheless scare patients into undergoing risky treatments, they argue. Fewer than 1% of men with GS6 prostate tumors experience metastatic disease or die from cancer within 15 years of the initial diagnosis, they report.

“No matter how much time a physician may spend downplaying the significance of a GS6 diagnosis or emphasizing the phrase low-risk, the words ‘you have cancer’ have a potent psychological effect on most men and their families,” they wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dropping the C word for low-risk tumors, which make up about half of 268,000 prostate cancer diagnoses annually in the United States, is not a new idea. An independent panel convened by the National Institutes of Health proposed just that in 2011.

However, clinician support for the shift appears to be growing, said Scott Eggener, MD, a urologic oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Chicago, and a coauthor of the new article.

Dr. Eggener said active surveillance has been increasing dramatically in the United States, to about 60% of patients with GS6. “We feel like the landscape is right now to be talking about this issue,” Dr. Eggener told this news organization.

Reducing unnecessary treatment, he and his coauthors argue, could reduce the cost of health care — and boost the benefit of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, which the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the moment deems small.

In addition, patients with prostate cancer diagnoses encounter increased risk of depression and suicide, disqualification or higher rates for life insurance, and questions from family and friends if they choose active surveillance over treatment – all of which might be ameliorated by a change in terminology.

The word “cancer” has been dropped from bladder, cervical, and thyroid conditions and prostate abnormalities that used to be classified as Gleason 2 through 5, they noted.
 

Keeping the status quo

But some physicians say GS6 doesn’t need a name change.

From a scientific standpoint, GS6 disease has molecular hallmarks of cancer, according to Jonathan Epstein, MD, professor of pathology, urology, and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More important, Dr. Epstein told Medscape, the classification does not guarantee that more serious cancer is not present, only that it has not been found yet in tissue samples.

Dr. Eggener acknowledged that while GS6 does have molecular markers associated with cancer – a fact that’s “challenging to reconcile with” – giving it another name “would still require surveillance, and since the window of opportunity for curing localized [prostate cancer] is typically measured in years or decades, evidence of histologic progression to a higher-grade cancer would far precede the potential time of future metastasis in the majority of cases.”

Still, Dr. Epstein worries that dropping the cancer designation may lead some patients to forgo active surveillance, which involves repeated imaging and biopsies to check for worse disease. Without such monitoring, he said, “if they do have higher grade cancer that’s unsampled, it will pose a threat to their life.”

Gleason 6 tumors “may progress, some significantly, or be incompletely sampled at the time of diagnosis. Both clinicians and patients need to understand such risk,” Peter Carroll, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who is critical of the proposed name change, told this news organization.

Regardless of what it’s called, Gleason 6 disease warrants close monitoring, said Joe Gallo, a 77-year-old Pennsylvania man whose high-risk cancer was detected during active surveillance. “If I had taken a laid-back, or less, approach” to monitoring, Mr. Gallo said, “necessary treatment may have been delayed and my condition may have become more serious.”

Some advocates say patients and their families need to be educated that cancer exists on a spectrum of severity.

Mark Lichty, 73, chairman of a support group called Active Surveillance Patients International, received a Gleason 6 diagnosis 17 years ago. He resisted treatment against medical advice, and the cancer never progressed.

Mr. Lichty said active surveillance has been more widely adopted in Sweden, where physicians assure patients that treatment is unnecessary and support systems exist. “Yes, a diagnosis of cancer is frightening,” he said in an interview. But “we can do a lot better in how we communicate the diagnosis.”

Dr. Eggener reported consulting or advisory roles with Sophiris Bio, Francis Medical, Insightec, Profound Medical, and Candel Therapeutics; speakers bureau at Janssen; and fees for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Janssen Biotech and Insightec; as well as an uncompensated relationship with Steba Biotech. The remaining coauthors reported several financial relationships, which are listed in the paper. Dr. Epstein and Dr. Carroll have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A team of experts is recommending that doctors forgo describing early, low-grade prostate tumors as “cancers” as a way to ease anxiety among patients and their families and reduce unnecessary treatment.

Physicians often advise that men with low-risk prostate tumors wait to see if the disease worsens – an approach called “active surveillance” – rather than rushing to treat the condition. After all, low-grade tumors rarely cause harm, and therapies such as radiation and surgery can carry serious side effects, including impotence and urinary leakage.

Yet doctors still label these lesions “cancer,” and as a result, some experts say, many men in the United States opt for treatment they don’t need.

In a new paper likely to stoke debate, experts from a range of disciplines, as well as one patient, argue that overtreatment could be reduced by removing the word “cancer” from low-risk disease. Tumors that rate 6 on the Gleason score (GS) cannot invade other organs but nonetheless scare patients into undergoing risky treatments, they argue. Fewer than 1% of men with GS6 prostate tumors experience metastatic disease or die from cancer within 15 years of the initial diagnosis, they report.

“No matter how much time a physician may spend downplaying the significance of a GS6 diagnosis or emphasizing the phrase low-risk, the words ‘you have cancer’ have a potent psychological effect on most men and their families,” they wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dropping the C word for low-risk tumors, which make up about half of 268,000 prostate cancer diagnoses annually in the United States, is not a new idea. An independent panel convened by the National Institutes of Health proposed just that in 2011.

However, clinician support for the shift appears to be growing, said Scott Eggener, MD, a urologic oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Chicago, and a coauthor of the new article.

Dr. Eggener said active surveillance has been increasing dramatically in the United States, to about 60% of patients with GS6. “We feel like the landscape is right now to be talking about this issue,” Dr. Eggener told this news organization.

Reducing unnecessary treatment, he and his coauthors argue, could reduce the cost of health care — and boost the benefit of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, which the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the moment deems small.

In addition, patients with prostate cancer diagnoses encounter increased risk of depression and suicide, disqualification or higher rates for life insurance, and questions from family and friends if they choose active surveillance over treatment – all of which might be ameliorated by a change in terminology.

The word “cancer” has been dropped from bladder, cervical, and thyroid conditions and prostate abnormalities that used to be classified as Gleason 2 through 5, they noted.
 

Keeping the status quo

But some physicians say GS6 doesn’t need a name change.

From a scientific standpoint, GS6 disease has molecular hallmarks of cancer, according to Jonathan Epstein, MD, professor of pathology, urology, and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More important, Dr. Epstein told Medscape, the classification does not guarantee that more serious cancer is not present, only that it has not been found yet in tissue samples.

Dr. Eggener acknowledged that while GS6 does have molecular markers associated with cancer – a fact that’s “challenging to reconcile with” – giving it another name “would still require surveillance, and since the window of opportunity for curing localized [prostate cancer] is typically measured in years or decades, evidence of histologic progression to a higher-grade cancer would far precede the potential time of future metastasis in the majority of cases.”

Still, Dr. Epstein worries that dropping the cancer designation may lead some patients to forgo active surveillance, which involves repeated imaging and biopsies to check for worse disease. Without such monitoring, he said, “if they do have higher grade cancer that’s unsampled, it will pose a threat to their life.”

Gleason 6 tumors “may progress, some significantly, or be incompletely sampled at the time of diagnosis. Both clinicians and patients need to understand such risk,” Peter Carroll, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who is critical of the proposed name change, told this news organization.

Regardless of what it’s called, Gleason 6 disease warrants close monitoring, said Joe Gallo, a 77-year-old Pennsylvania man whose high-risk cancer was detected during active surveillance. “If I had taken a laid-back, or less, approach” to monitoring, Mr. Gallo said, “necessary treatment may have been delayed and my condition may have become more serious.”

Some advocates say patients and their families need to be educated that cancer exists on a spectrum of severity.

Mark Lichty, 73, chairman of a support group called Active Surveillance Patients International, received a Gleason 6 diagnosis 17 years ago. He resisted treatment against medical advice, and the cancer never progressed.

Mr. Lichty said active surveillance has been more widely adopted in Sweden, where physicians assure patients that treatment is unnecessary and support systems exist. “Yes, a diagnosis of cancer is frightening,” he said in an interview. But “we can do a lot better in how we communicate the diagnosis.”

Dr. Eggener reported consulting or advisory roles with Sophiris Bio, Francis Medical, Insightec, Profound Medical, and Candel Therapeutics; speakers bureau at Janssen; and fees for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Janssen Biotech and Insightec; as well as an uncompensated relationship with Steba Biotech. The remaining coauthors reported several financial relationships, which are listed in the paper. Dr. Epstein and Dr. Carroll have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians are not following guidelines that recommend a de-escalation in surveillance for patients with low-risk non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), a new study concludes.  

These cancers are associated with low rates of recurrence, progression, and bladder cancer–specific death, so current clinical practice guidelines recommend against frequent monitoring and testing.

However, the study authors found that patients with a low grade Ta NMIBC diagnosis underwent a median of three cystoscopies per year, and many also received a median of two imagine scans (CT or MRI) as well as 2-3 urine-based tests.

“These data suggest a need for ongoing efforts to limit overuse of treatment and surveillance, which may in turn mitigate associated increases in the costs of care,” write the authors, led by Kelly K. Bree, MD, from the department of urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Bladder cancer has the highest lifetime treatment cost of all malignancies, they point out.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher value and more evidence-based

The impact of increased surveillance of this patient cohort has broad implications for patients and the health care system in general, say experts writing in an accompanying editorial.

“It has been well established that workup for NMIBC can have negative consequences for the physical and psychological health of patients,” note Grayden S. Cook, BS, and Jeffrey M. Howard, MD, PhD, both from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“Many of these patients undergo frequent CT imaging of the urinary tract, which carries a high dose of radiation as well as the potential for financial toxic effects (that is, detrimental consequences to the patient because of health care costs),” they write.

Additionally, patient distress is a factor, as they may experience preprocedural anxiety, physical discomfort during procedures, and worry about disease progression, they point out.

“The impact of these patterns is substantial and may have negative consequences for both patients and the health care system,” they conclude. “Thus, it is imperative to move forward with initiatives that provide higher value and are more evidence-based and patient-centered.”
 

Study finds frequent surveillance

The American Urological Association (AUA)/Society of Urologic Oncologists (SUO), the European Association of Urology, and the International Bladder Cancer Group have made an effort to de-escalate surveillance and treatment for patients with low-grade Ta disease, while at the same time maintaining appropriate surveillance for high-grade aggressive disease.

However, the new study found that in practice, such patients undergo frequent testing.

The study involved 13,054 patients with low-grade Ta NMIBC. Most of the participants were male (73.5%), with a median age of 76 years, and had no or few comorbidities (71.2%).

Most patients had undergone cystoscopy, and rates increased over time: from 79.3% of patients in 2004 to 81.5% of patients in 2013 (P = .007). Patients underwent a median of 3.0 cystoscopies per year following their diagnosis, and upper-tract imaging was performed in most patients.

The use of kidney ultrasonography also rose from 19% of patients in 2004 to 23.2% in 2013, as did retrograde pyelography (20.9% in 2004 vs. 24.2% in 2013). Conversely, the use of intravenous pyelography declined (from 14.5% in 2004 to 1.7% in 2012), but there was an increase in CT and MRI in all years except 2010 (from 30.4% of patients in 2004 to 47% of patients in 2013; P < .001). The rate of urine-based testing also significantly increased during the study period (from 44.8% in 2004 to 54.9% in 2013; P < .001), with patients undergoing between two to three tests per year.

Adherence to current guidelines remained similar during the study time frame. For example, 55.2% of patients received two cystoscopies per year in 2004-2008, compared with 53.8% in 2009-2013 (P = .11), suggesting that there was an overuse of all surveillance testing modalities.

As for treatment, 17.2% received intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette-Guérin, 6.1% were treated with intravesical chemotherapy (excluding receipt of a single perioperative dose). Disease recurrence within this cohort was 1.7%, and only 0.4% experienced disease progression.

When looking at the cost, the total median expenditures at 1 year after diagnosis increased by 60% during the study period, from $34,792 in 2004 to $53,986 in 2013. Higher costs were seen among patients who experienced a recurrence versus no recurrence ($76,669 vs. $53,909).

The study was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program. Several of the authors have disclosed relationships with industry, as noted in the original article. Editorialists Mr. Cook and Dr. Howard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians are not following guidelines that recommend a de-escalation in surveillance for patients with low-risk non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), a new study concludes.  

These cancers are associated with low rates of recurrence, progression, and bladder cancer–specific death, so current clinical practice guidelines recommend against frequent monitoring and testing.

However, the study authors found that patients with a low grade Ta NMIBC diagnosis underwent a median of three cystoscopies per year, and many also received a median of two imagine scans (CT or MRI) as well as 2-3 urine-based tests.

“These data suggest a need for ongoing efforts to limit overuse of treatment and surveillance, which may in turn mitigate associated increases in the costs of care,” write the authors, led by Kelly K. Bree, MD, from the department of urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Bladder cancer has the highest lifetime treatment cost of all malignancies, they point out.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher value and more evidence-based

The impact of increased surveillance of this patient cohort has broad implications for patients and the health care system in general, say experts writing in an accompanying editorial.

“It has been well established that workup for NMIBC can have negative consequences for the physical and psychological health of patients,” note Grayden S. Cook, BS, and Jeffrey M. Howard, MD, PhD, both from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“Many of these patients undergo frequent CT imaging of the urinary tract, which carries a high dose of radiation as well as the potential for financial toxic effects (that is, detrimental consequences to the patient because of health care costs),” they write.

Additionally, patient distress is a factor, as they may experience preprocedural anxiety, physical discomfort during procedures, and worry about disease progression, they point out.

“The impact of these patterns is substantial and may have negative consequences for both patients and the health care system,” they conclude. “Thus, it is imperative to move forward with initiatives that provide higher value and are more evidence-based and patient-centered.”
 

Study finds frequent surveillance

The American Urological Association (AUA)/Society of Urologic Oncologists (SUO), the European Association of Urology, and the International Bladder Cancer Group have made an effort to de-escalate surveillance and treatment for patients with low-grade Ta disease, while at the same time maintaining appropriate surveillance for high-grade aggressive disease.

However, the new study found that in practice, such patients undergo frequent testing.

The study involved 13,054 patients with low-grade Ta NMIBC. Most of the participants were male (73.5%), with a median age of 76 years, and had no or few comorbidities (71.2%).

Most patients had undergone cystoscopy, and rates increased over time: from 79.3% of patients in 2004 to 81.5% of patients in 2013 (P = .007). Patients underwent a median of 3.0 cystoscopies per year following their diagnosis, and upper-tract imaging was performed in most patients.

The use of kidney ultrasonography also rose from 19% of patients in 2004 to 23.2% in 2013, as did retrograde pyelography (20.9% in 2004 vs. 24.2% in 2013). Conversely, the use of intravenous pyelography declined (from 14.5% in 2004 to 1.7% in 2012), but there was an increase in CT and MRI in all years except 2010 (from 30.4% of patients in 2004 to 47% of patients in 2013; P < .001). The rate of urine-based testing also significantly increased during the study period (from 44.8% in 2004 to 54.9% in 2013; P < .001), with patients undergoing between two to three tests per year.

Adherence to current guidelines remained similar during the study time frame. For example, 55.2% of patients received two cystoscopies per year in 2004-2008, compared with 53.8% in 2009-2013 (P = .11), suggesting that there was an overuse of all surveillance testing modalities.

As for treatment, 17.2% received intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette-Guérin, 6.1% were treated with intravesical chemotherapy (excluding receipt of a single perioperative dose). Disease recurrence within this cohort was 1.7%, and only 0.4% experienced disease progression.

When looking at the cost, the total median expenditures at 1 year after diagnosis increased by 60% during the study period, from $34,792 in 2004 to $53,986 in 2013. Higher costs were seen among patients who experienced a recurrence versus no recurrence ($76,669 vs. $53,909).

The study was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program. Several of the authors have disclosed relationships with industry, as noted in the original article. Editorialists Mr. Cook and Dr. Howard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians are not following guidelines that recommend a de-escalation in surveillance for patients with low-risk non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), a new study concludes.  

These cancers are associated with low rates of recurrence, progression, and bladder cancer–specific death, so current clinical practice guidelines recommend against frequent monitoring and testing.

However, the study authors found that patients with a low grade Ta NMIBC diagnosis underwent a median of three cystoscopies per year, and many also received a median of two imagine scans (CT or MRI) as well as 2-3 urine-based tests.

“These data suggest a need for ongoing efforts to limit overuse of treatment and surveillance, which may in turn mitigate associated increases in the costs of care,” write the authors, led by Kelly K. Bree, MD, from the department of urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Bladder cancer has the highest lifetime treatment cost of all malignancies, they point out.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher value and more evidence-based

The impact of increased surveillance of this patient cohort has broad implications for patients and the health care system in general, say experts writing in an accompanying editorial.

“It has been well established that workup for NMIBC can have negative consequences for the physical and psychological health of patients,” note Grayden S. Cook, BS, and Jeffrey M. Howard, MD, PhD, both from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“Many of these patients undergo frequent CT imaging of the urinary tract, which carries a high dose of radiation as well as the potential for financial toxic effects (that is, detrimental consequences to the patient because of health care costs),” they write.

Additionally, patient distress is a factor, as they may experience preprocedural anxiety, physical discomfort during procedures, and worry about disease progression, they point out.

“The impact of these patterns is substantial and may have negative consequences for both patients and the health care system,” they conclude. “Thus, it is imperative to move forward with initiatives that provide higher value and are more evidence-based and patient-centered.”
 

Study finds frequent surveillance

The American Urological Association (AUA)/Society of Urologic Oncologists (SUO), the European Association of Urology, and the International Bladder Cancer Group have made an effort to de-escalate surveillance and treatment for patients with low-grade Ta disease, while at the same time maintaining appropriate surveillance for high-grade aggressive disease.

However, the new study found that in practice, such patients undergo frequent testing.

The study involved 13,054 patients with low-grade Ta NMIBC. Most of the participants were male (73.5%), with a median age of 76 years, and had no or few comorbidities (71.2%).

Most patients had undergone cystoscopy, and rates increased over time: from 79.3% of patients in 2004 to 81.5% of patients in 2013 (P = .007). Patients underwent a median of 3.0 cystoscopies per year following their diagnosis, and upper-tract imaging was performed in most patients.

The use of kidney ultrasonography also rose from 19% of patients in 2004 to 23.2% in 2013, as did retrograde pyelography (20.9% in 2004 vs. 24.2% in 2013). Conversely, the use of intravenous pyelography declined (from 14.5% in 2004 to 1.7% in 2012), but there was an increase in CT and MRI in all years except 2010 (from 30.4% of patients in 2004 to 47% of patients in 2013; P < .001). The rate of urine-based testing also significantly increased during the study period (from 44.8% in 2004 to 54.9% in 2013; P < .001), with patients undergoing between two to three tests per year.

Adherence to current guidelines remained similar during the study time frame. For example, 55.2% of patients received two cystoscopies per year in 2004-2008, compared with 53.8% in 2009-2013 (P = .11), suggesting that there was an overuse of all surveillance testing modalities.

As for treatment, 17.2% received intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette-Guérin, 6.1% were treated with intravesical chemotherapy (excluding receipt of a single perioperative dose). Disease recurrence within this cohort was 1.7%, and only 0.4% experienced disease progression.

When looking at the cost, the total median expenditures at 1 year after diagnosis increased by 60% during the study period, from $34,792 in 2004 to $53,986 in 2013. Higher costs were seen among patients who experienced a recurrence versus no recurrence ($76,669 vs. $53,909).

The study was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program. Several of the authors have disclosed relationships with industry, as noted in the original article. Editorialists Mr. Cook and Dr. Howard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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