Genitourinary Cancer

Metformin use, regardless of dose, was associated with increased overall survival in older adults with advanced cancer, according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.

The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.

Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).

Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).

Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.

“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.  

Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.  

The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).

Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.

Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”

The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Metformin use, regardless of dose, was associated with increased overall survival in older adults with advanced cancer, according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.

The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.

Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).

Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).

Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.

“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.  

Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.  

The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).

Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.

Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”

The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Metformin use, regardless of dose, was associated with increased overall survival in older adults with advanced cancer, according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.

The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.

Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).

Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).

Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.

“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.  

Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.  

The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).

Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.

Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”

The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The link between obesity and cancer has increasingly been emphasized in public health messages, but is the current message correct?

“Being overweight or having obesity increases your risk of getting cancer,” warns the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It warns that overweight/obesity is “linked with a higher risk of getting 13 types of cancer ... [which] make up 40% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States each year.”

But that message, which is also promulgated by many cancer organizations, is based on data from observational studies, which have many limitations.

A new study based on Mendelian randomization studies has come to a slightly different conclusion and has found a potential causal association with just six cancers.

In addition, it found an inverse relationship for breast cancer, in which early-life obesity was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer, and the relationship with obesity was “complicated” for lung and prostate cancer.

The study, headed by Zhe Fang, MBBS, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Mass., was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

“For a seemingly straightforward question of whether excessive body fatness causes cancer, the answer may not be straightforward after all,” writes Song Yao, PhD, professor of oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., in an accompanying editorial

“How to craft a simple public health message to convey the complexity and nuances of the relationships may be a challenge to be grappled with going forward,” he added.

In an interview, Dr. Yao said that it “really depends on what kind of message you want to get out.”

“If you want to talk about cancer overall, as one disease, we all know that a clear association with obesity does not exist,” he said. “It’s not that simple.”

“You really cannot say that obesity increases cancer risk overall,” he said.

For some cancers included in the study, Dr. Yao continued, it was “very clear that obesity increased the risk ... but for some other cancer types, we either don’t have enough data yet or the association is not as consistent.”

This, he said, is especially the case for prostate and lung cancer.

All of this indicates that there is a complex relationship between obesity and cancer risk, he maintains.

“We always think obesity is bad, not only for cancer but also for more common conditions, like hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Yao noted. This points to the link between obesity and chronic inflammation, he added.

However, there are also other hypotheses, including synthesis of estrogen in adipose tissue, which may explain the link between obesity and breast cancer risk in older women.

However, in younger women, obesity protects against breast cancer, and “we really don’t know why,” Dr. Yao said.

The new study used Mendelian randomization to examine these relationships. This is a “new tool that we have developed over the past 20 years or so, largely because there is so much data coming from genome-wide association studies,” Dr. Yao explained.

It has “advantages” over other methods, including observational studies. One of its strengths is that it is “not impacted by reverse causality,” because genetic risk does not change over time.

However, he said, it is “quite straightforward to think that the genetics do not change, but at the same time, the environment we live in throughout our life course changes,” and the impact of genetic variants may be “washed out.”

How genetics influences cancer risk may therefore change over time, and it is a “dynamic process,” Dr. Yao commented.

In addition, this approach has its own limitations, he said, because it depends on how much of the variation in a given measure can be attributed to genetic factors.
 

New conclusions

In their study, Dr. Fang and colleagues reviewed 204 meta-analyses of 2,179 individual estimates from 507 cohort or case-control studies. They found “strong evidence” that supports the association between obesity and 11 cancers.

These are esophageal adenocarcinoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the gastric cardia, colon, rectum, biliary tract system, pancreas, breast, endometrium, ovary, and kidney.

They note, however, that the associations “may be causal for some malignancies” but that the co-occurrence of obesity with various cancer risk factors means that others may be “susceptible to potential confounding bias.”

To overcome some of these limitations, the team looked to Mendelian randomization studies that examined the association between genetic variants linked to body mass index (BMI), indicating lifetime risk of high BMI, and cancer risk for a range of cancer types.

These Mendelian randomization studies were then compared with the results of large-scale conventional observational studies, as well as with evidence in reports from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Cancer Research Fund–American Institute of Cancer Research, which also include experimental studies.

The researchers say that, overall, the Mendelian randomization studies “further establish the causality of obesity” with six cancer types: colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, kidney, and pancreatic cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In addition, these studies further establish the inverse relationship of early-life obesity with breast cancer.

However, the approach could not confirm a positive association between obesity and gallbladder and gastric cardia cancer, as well as multiple myeloma.

“This could be due to low power,” the team suggests, “and larger studies are required.”

With respect to lung cancer, the Mendelian randomization identified a positive association with obesity that supports the inverse association identified in observational studies, that is, that obesity may reduce the risk for lung cancer.

The researchers suggest this may reflect reverse causality related to the loss of lean body mass before diagnosis, as well as confounding by smoking.

For prostate cancer, the evidence was “conflicting” and “implies a complicated role of obesity,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues comment.

The link between obesity and lower prostate-specific antigen levels, they suggest, may result in a detection bias by masking the presence of prostate cancer, or it “could be biological” in origin, owing to reduced androgen levels.

For six cancer types for which a causal relationship with obesity could be established, the effect estimates from the Mendelian randomization studies were stronger than those seen in conventional studies, with the magnitude of risk ranging from 1.14-fold for early-life obesity and breast cancer to 1.37-fold for adult obesity and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In another editorial accompanying the new study, Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH, from Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, underlined that childhood and adolescent obesity and their contribution to cancer risk need further attention.

“To reap the reward from past research, we must act to implement effective strategies to reduce childhood and adolescent adiposity, reduce excess weight gain in adult years, and maintain a healthy weight,” he writes.

“This will require us to change the way we live, but COVID-19 has shown we can make changes to how we live and work. Let us keep the changes we have already made, or take on new ones, that will cut our collective cancer toll,” he implores.

No funding for the study was described. Dr. Colditz is supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. No other relevant financial relationships were described.

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

The link between obesity and cancer has increasingly been emphasized in public health messages, but is the current message correct?

“Being overweight or having obesity increases your risk of getting cancer,” warns the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It warns that overweight/obesity is “linked with a higher risk of getting 13 types of cancer ... [which] make up 40% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States each year.”

But that message, which is also promulgated by many cancer organizations, is based on data from observational studies, which have many limitations.

A new study based on Mendelian randomization studies has come to a slightly different conclusion and has found a potential causal association with just six cancers.

In addition, it found an inverse relationship for breast cancer, in which early-life obesity was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer, and the relationship with obesity was “complicated” for lung and prostate cancer.

The study, headed by Zhe Fang, MBBS, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Mass., was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

“For a seemingly straightforward question of whether excessive body fatness causes cancer, the answer may not be straightforward after all,” writes Song Yao, PhD, professor of oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., in an accompanying editorial

“How to craft a simple public health message to convey the complexity and nuances of the relationships may be a challenge to be grappled with going forward,” he added.

In an interview, Dr. Yao said that it “really depends on what kind of message you want to get out.”

“If you want to talk about cancer overall, as one disease, we all know that a clear association with obesity does not exist,” he said. “It’s not that simple.”

“You really cannot say that obesity increases cancer risk overall,” he said.

For some cancers included in the study, Dr. Yao continued, it was “very clear that obesity increased the risk ... but for some other cancer types, we either don’t have enough data yet or the association is not as consistent.”

This, he said, is especially the case for prostate and lung cancer.

All of this indicates that there is a complex relationship between obesity and cancer risk, he maintains.

“We always think obesity is bad, not only for cancer but also for more common conditions, like hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Yao noted. This points to the link between obesity and chronic inflammation, he added.

However, there are also other hypotheses, including synthesis of estrogen in adipose tissue, which may explain the link between obesity and breast cancer risk in older women.

However, in younger women, obesity protects against breast cancer, and “we really don’t know why,” Dr. Yao said.

The new study used Mendelian randomization to examine these relationships. This is a “new tool that we have developed over the past 20 years or so, largely because there is so much data coming from genome-wide association studies,” Dr. Yao explained.

It has “advantages” over other methods, including observational studies. One of its strengths is that it is “not impacted by reverse causality,” because genetic risk does not change over time.

However, he said, it is “quite straightforward to think that the genetics do not change, but at the same time, the environment we live in throughout our life course changes,” and the impact of genetic variants may be “washed out.”

How genetics influences cancer risk may therefore change over time, and it is a “dynamic process,” Dr. Yao commented.

In addition, this approach has its own limitations, he said, because it depends on how much of the variation in a given measure can be attributed to genetic factors.
 

New conclusions

In their study, Dr. Fang and colleagues reviewed 204 meta-analyses of 2,179 individual estimates from 507 cohort or case-control studies. They found “strong evidence” that supports the association between obesity and 11 cancers.

These are esophageal adenocarcinoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the gastric cardia, colon, rectum, biliary tract system, pancreas, breast, endometrium, ovary, and kidney.

They note, however, that the associations “may be causal for some malignancies” but that the co-occurrence of obesity with various cancer risk factors means that others may be “susceptible to potential confounding bias.”

To overcome some of these limitations, the team looked to Mendelian randomization studies that examined the association between genetic variants linked to body mass index (BMI), indicating lifetime risk of high BMI, and cancer risk for a range of cancer types.

These Mendelian randomization studies were then compared with the results of large-scale conventional observational studies, as well as with evidence in reports from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Cancer Research Fund–American Institute of Cancer Research, which also include experimental studies.

The researchers say that, overall, the Mendelian randomization studies “further establish the causality of obesity” with six cancer types: colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, kidney, and pancreatic cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In addition, these studies further establish the inverse relationship of early-life obesity with breast cancer.

However, the approach could not confirm a positive association between obesity and gallbladder and gastric cardia cancer, as well as multiple myeloma.

“This could be due to low power,” the team suggests, “and larger studies are required.”

With respect to lung cancer, the Mendelian randomization identified a positive association with obesity that supports the inverse association identified in observational studies, that is, that obesity may reduce the risk for lung cancer.

The researchers suggest this may reflect reverse causality related to the loss of lean body mass before diagnosis, as well as confounding by smoking.

For prostate cancer, the evidence was “conflicting” and “implies a complicated role of obesity,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues comment.

The link between obesity and lower prostate-specific antigen levels, they suggest, may result in a detection bias by masking the presence of prostate cancer, or it “could be biological” in origin, owing to reduced androgen levels.

For six cancer types for which a causal relationship with obesity could be established, the effect estimates from the Mendelian randomization studies were stronger than those seen in conventional studies, with the magnitude of risk ranging from 1.14-fold for early-life obesity and breast cancer to 1.37-fold for adult obesity and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In another editorial accompanying the new study, Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH, from Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, underlined that childhood and adolescent obesity and their contribution to cancer risk need further attention.

“To reap the reward from past research, we must act to implement effective strategies to reduce childhood and adolescent adiposity, reduce excess weight gain in adult years, and maintain a healthy weight,” he writes.

“This will require us to change the way we live, but COVID-19 has shown we can make changes to how we live and work. Let us keep the changes we have already made, or take on new ones, that will cut our collective cancer toll,” he implores.

No funding for the study was described. Dr. Colditz is supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. No other relevant financial relationships were described.

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

The link between obesity and cancer has increasingly been emphasized in public health messages, but is the current message correct?

“Being overweight or having obesity increases your risk of getting cancer,” warns the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It warns that overweight/obesity is “linked with a higher risk of getting 13 types of cancer ... [which] make up 40% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States each year.”

But that message, which is also promulgated by many cancer organizations, is based on data from observational studies, which have many limitations.

A new study based on Mendelian randomization studies has come to a slightly different conclusion and has found a potential causal association with just six cancers.

In addition, it found an inverse relationship for breast cancer, in which early-life obesity was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer, and the relationship with obesity was “complicated” for lung and prostate cancer.

The study, headed by Zhe Fang, MBBS, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Mass., was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

“For a seemingly straightforward question of whether excessive body fatness causes cancer, the answer may not be straightforward after all,” writes Song Yao, PhD, professor of oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., in an accompanying editorial

“How to craft a simple public health message to convey the complexity and nuances of the relationships may be a challenge to be grappled with going forward,” he added.

In an interview, Dr. Yao said that it “really depends on what kind of message you want to get out.”

“If you want to talk about cancer overall, as one disease, we all know that a clear association with obesity does not exist,” he said. “It’s not that simple.”

“You really cannot say that obesity increases cancer risk overall,” he said.

For some cancers included in the study, Dr. Yao continued, it was “very clear that obesity increased the risk ... but for some other cancer types, we either don’t have enough data yet or the association is not as consistent.”

This, he said, is especially the case for prostate and lung cancer.

All of this indicates that there is a complex relationship between obesity and cancer risk, he maintains.

“We always think obesity is bad, not only for cancer but also for more common conditions, like hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Yao noted. This points to the link between obesity and chronic inflammation, he added.

However, there are also other hypotheses, including synthesis of estrogen in adipose tissue, which may explain the link between obesity and breast cancer risk in older women.

However, in younger women, obesity protects against breast cancer, and “we really don’t know why,” Dr. Yao said.

The new study used Mendelian randomization to examine these relationships. This is a “new tool that we have developed over the past 20 years or so, largely because there is so much data coming from genome-wide association studies,” Dr. Yao explained.

It has “advantages” over other methods, including observational studies. One of its strengths is that it is “not impacted by reverse causality,” because genetic risk does not change over time.

However, he said, it is “quite straightforward to think that the genetics do not change, but at the same time, the environment we live in throughout our life course changes,” and the impact of genetic variants may be “washed out.”

How genetics influences cancer risk may therefore change over time, and it is a “dynamic process,” Dr. Yao commented.

In addition, this approach has its own limitations, he said, because it depends on how much of the variation in a given measure can be attributed to genetic factors.
 

New conclusions

In their study, Dr. Fang and colleagues reviewed 204 meta-analyses of 2,179 individual estimates from 507 cohort or case-control studies. They found “strong evidence” that supports the association between obesity and 11 cancers.

These are esophageal adenocarcinoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the gastric cardia, colon, rectum, biliary tract system, pancreas, breast, endometrium, ovary, and kidney.

They note, however, that the associations “may be causal for some malignancies” but that the co-occurrence of obesity with various cancer risk factors means that others may be “susceptible to potential confounding bias.”

To overcome some of these limitations, the team looked to Mendelian randomization studies that examined the association between genetic variants linked to body mass index (BMI), indicating lifetime risk of high BMI, and cancer risk for a range of cancer types.

These Mendelian randomization studies were then compared with the results of large-scale conventional observational studies, as well as with evidence in reports from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Cancer Research Fund–American Institute of Cancer Research, which also include experimental studies.

The researchers say that, overall, the Mendelian randomization studies “further establish the causality of obesity” with six cancer types: colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, kidney, and pancreatic cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In addition, these studies further establish the inverse relationship of early-life obesity with breast cancer.

However, the approach could not confirm a positive association between obesity and gallbladder and gastric cardia cancer, as well as multiple myeloma.

“This could be due to low power,” the team suggests, “and larger studies are required.”

With respect to lung cancer, the Mendelian randomization identified a positive association with obesity that supports the inverse association identified in observational studies, that is, that obesity may reduce the risk for lung cancer.

The researchers suggest this may reflect reverse causality related to the loss of lean body mass before diagnosis, as well as confounding by smoking.

For prostate cancer, the evidence was “conflicting” and “implies a complicated role of obesity,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues comment.

The link between obesity and lower prostate-specific antigen levels, they suggest, may result in a detection bias by masking the presence of prostate cancer, or it “could be biological” in origin, owing to reduced androgen levels.

For six cancer types for which a causal relationship with obesity could be established, the effect estimates from the Mendelian randomization studies were stronger than those seen in conventional studies, with the magnitude of risk ranging from 1.14-fold for early-life obesity and breast cancer to 1.37-fold for adult obesity and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In another editorial accompanying the new study, Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH, from Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, underlined that childhood and adolescent obesity and their contribution to cancer risk need further attention.

“To reap the reward from past research, we must act to implement effective strategies to reduce childhood and adolescent adiposity, reduce excess weight gain in adult years, and maintain a healthy weight,” he writes.

“This will require us to change the way we live, but COVID-19 has shown we can make changes to how we live and work. Let us keep the changes we have already made, or take on new ones, that will cut our collective cancer toll,” he implores.

No funding for the study was described. Dr. Colditz is supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. No other relevant financial relationships were described.

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

Federal Practitioner, in collaboration with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), present the 2022 edition of Cancer Data Trends (click to view the digital edition). This special issue provides updates on some of the top cancers and related concerns affecting veterans through original infographics and visual storytelling.

 

In this issue:

• Exposure-Related Cancers
• Cancer in Women
• Genitourinary Cancers
• Gastrointestinal Cancers
• Telehealth in Oncology
•  Precision Oncology
•  Palliative and Hospice Care
•  Alcohol and Cancer
•  Lung Cancer
•  Oropharyngeal Cancer
• Hematologic Cancers

Federal Practitioner and AVAHO would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this issue:

Anita Aggarwal, DO, PhD; Sara Ahmed, PhD; Katherine Faricy-Anderson, MD; Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, MS; Solomon A Graf, MD; Kate Hendricks Thomas, PhD; Michael Kelley, MD; Mark Klein, MD, Gina McWhirter, MSN, MBA, RN; Bruce Montgomery, MD; Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA; Thomas D Rodgers, MD; Vlad C Sandulache, MD, PhD; David H Wang, MD, PhD.

Federal Practitioner, in collaboration with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), present the 2022 edition of Cancer Data Trends (click to view the digital edition). This special issue provides updates on some of the top cancers and related concerns affecting veterans through original infographics and visual storytelling.

 

In this issue:

• Exposure-Related Cancers
• Cancer in Women
• Genitourinary Cancers
• Gastrointestinal Cancers
• Telehealth in Oncology
•  Precision Oncology
•  Palliative and Hospice Care
•  Alcohol and Cancer
•  Lung Cancer
•  Oropharyngeal Cancer
• Hematologic Cancers

Federal Practitioner and AVAHO would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this issue:

Anita Aggarwal, DO, PhD; Sara Ahmed, PhD; Katherine Faricy-Anderson, MD; Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, MS; Solomon A Graf, MD; Kate Hendricks Thomas, PhD; Michael Kelley, MD; Mark Klein, MD, Gina McWhirter, MSN, MBA, RN; Bruce Montgomery, MD; Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA; Thomas D Rodgers, MD; Vlad C Sandulache, MD, PhD; David H Wang, MD, PhD.

Federal Practitioner, in collaboration with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), present the 2022 edition of Cancer Data Trends (click to view the digital edition). This special issue provides updates on some of the top cancers and related concerns affecting veterans through original infographics and visual storytelling.

 

In this issue:

• Exposure-Related Cancers
• Cancer in Women
• Genitourinary Cancers
• Gastrointestinal Cancers
• Telehealth in Oncology
•  Precision Oncology
•  Palliative and Hospice Care
•  Alcohol and Cancer
•  Lung Cancer
•  Oropharyngeal Cancer
• Hematologic Cancers

Federal Practitioner and AVAHO would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this issue:

Anita Aggarwal, DO, PhD; Sara Ahmed, PhD; Katherine Faricy-Anderson, MD; Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, MS; Solomon A Graf, MD; Kate Hendricks Thomas, PhD; Michael Kelley, MD; Mark Klein, MD, Gina McWhirter, MSN, MBA, RN; Bruce Montgomery, MD; Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA; Thomas D Rodgers, MD; Vlad C Sandulache, MD, PhD; David H Wang, MD, PhD.

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

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

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

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

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

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

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

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

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

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

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

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

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

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

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

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

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

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

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

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

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

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

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

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

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

The incidence of metastatic prostate cancer shot up in the United States after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routinely screening men with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA), shows a report published online in JAMA Network Open.

It was a consequence that many experts in prostate cancer predicted at the time the recommendation was made – initially in 2008 against routine screening in men older than 75 years, then in all men in 2012.

The thinking was that the harms of screening all men – leading to unnecessary prostatectomies and other treatments in many men – outweighed the benefits of catching early high-risk disease in fewer men. Screening rates plummeted as a result.

But experts in prostate cancer warned that the move, while reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment, would have the unfortunate consequence of underdiagnosis and, consequently, nondetection of the cases of prostate cancer that would spread. 

The new findings are the latest to suggest that this is, in fact, what happened, and echo similar findings previously reported by this news organization.  

For this study, investigators at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, analyzed the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004-2018, with 2018 being the latest data available.

SEER captures about 28% of the U.S. population and recorded almost 50,000 new mPCa cases over the period.

Among men 45-75 years old, the incidence of mPCa increased 41% from when USPSTF recommended against screening through 2018, which translated to an annual percentage change (APC) of 5.3%.

Among men 75 years and older, mPCa rates jumped 43% through 2018, an APC of 6.5%.

The researchers did not find an increase in deaths from prostate cancer, but given the 5-7 years median survival, it might be too early to tell.

“The observation of a rising incidence of mPCa in itself does not imply that screening practices should be changed. The overall risk versus benefit of PSA-based screening is extremely complex and must take into account various other factors that impact the overall health of the community,” say investigators, led by Mihir Desai, MD, a clinical urology professor at USC. 

However, screening practices have already changed. The USPSTF withdrew its objections to screening in 2018 and instead recommended personalized decisionmaking for men 55-69 years old, citing new evidence that screening prevents metastatic disease and reduces PCa mortality more than previously recognized, Richard Hoffman, MD, MPH, an internal medicine professor at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an accompanying editorial.

The study’s trends in mPCa “might be transitory because the screening guidelines have” changed, Dr. Hoffman writes.

For now, clinicians should “consistently address screening with men who are healthy enough to benefit” from catching dangerous tumors early and engage them “in shared decisionmaking discussions to” strike the right balance between minimizing overdiagnosis and catching high-risk tumors before they spread, he said.

Easier said than done, but the field is advancing. Active surveillance, instead of surgery, for what seem to be low-risk tumors is one step in the right direction, Dr. Hoffman commented. 

No external funding was reported. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Procept Biorobotics and Auris Surgical. Dr. Hoffman reported royalties from UpToDate and fees from law firms as an expert witness on prostate cancer screening cases.

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

The incidence of metastatic prostate cancer shot up in the United States after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routinely screening men with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA), shows a report published online in JAMA Network Open.

It was a consequence that many experts in prostate cancer predicted at the time the recommendation was made – initially in 2008 against routine screening in men older than 75 years, then in all men in 2012.

The thinking was that the harms of screening all men – leading to unnecessary prostatectomies and other treatments in many men – outweighed the benefits of catching early high-risk disease in fewer men. Screening rates plummeted as a result.

But experts in prostate cancer warned that the move, while reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment, would have the unfortunate consequence of underdiagnosis and, consequently, nondetection of the cases of prostate cancer that would spread. 

The new findings are the latest to suggest that this is, in fact, what happened, and echo similar findings previously reported by this news organization.  

For this study, investigators at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, analyzed the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004-2018, with 2018 being the latest data available.

SEER captures about 28% of the U.S. population and recorded almost 50,000 new mPCa cases over the period.

Among men 45-75 years old, the incidence of mPCa increased 41% from when USPSTF recommended against screening through 2018, which translated to an annual percentage change (APC) of 5.3%.

Among men 75 years and older, mPCa rates jumped 43% through 2018, an APC of 6.5%.

The researchers did not find an increase in deaths from prostate cancer, but given the 5-7 years median survival, it might be too early to tell.

“The observation of a rising incidence of mPCa in itself does not imply that screening practices should be changed. The overall risk versus benefit of PSA-based screening is extremely complex and must take into account various other factors that impact the overall health of the community,” say investigators, led by Mihir Desai, MD, a clinical urology professor at USC. 

However, screening practices have already changed. The USPSTF withdrew its objections to screening in 2018 and instead recommended personalized decisionmaking for men 55-69 years old, citing new evidence that screening prevents metastatic disease and reduces PCa mortality more than previously recognized, Richard Hoffman, MD, MPH, an internal medicine professor at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an accompanying editorial.

The study’s trends in mPCa “might be transitory because the screening guidelines have” changed, Dr. Hoffman writes.

For now, clinicians should “consistently address screening with men who are healthy enough to benefit” from catching dangerous tumors early and engage them “in shared decisionmaking discussions to” strike the right balance between minimizing overdiagnosis and catching high-risk tumors before they spread, he said.

Easier said than done, but the field is advancing. Active surveillance, instead of surgery, for what seem to be low-risk tumors is one step in the right direction, Dr. Hoffman commented. 

No external funding was reported. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Procept Biorobotics and Auris Surgical. Dr. Hoffman reported royalties from UpToDate and fees from law firms as an expert witness on prostate cancer screening cases.

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

The incidence of metastatic prostate cancer shot up in the United States after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routinely screening men with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA), shows a report published online in JAMA Network Open.

It was a consequence that many experts in prostate cancer predicted at the time the recommendation was made – initially in 2008 against routine screening in men older than 75 years, then in all men in 2012.

The thinking was that the harms of screening all men – leading to unnecessary prostatectomies and other treatments in many men – outweighed the benefits of catching early high-risk disease in fewer men. Screening rates plummeted as a result.

But experts in prostate cancer warned that the move, while reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment, would have the unfortunate consequence of underdiagnosis and, consequently, nondetection of the cases of prostate cancer that would spread. 

The new findings are the latest to suggest that this is, in fact, what happened, and echo similar findings previously reported by this news organization.  

For this study, investigators at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, analyzed the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004-2018, with 2018 being the latest data available.

SEER captures about 28% of the U.S. population and recorded almost 50,000 new mPCa cases over the period.

Among men 45-75 years old, the incidence of mPCa increased 41% from when USPSTF recommended against screening through 2018, which translated to an annual percentage change (APC) of 5.3%.

Among men 75 years and older, mPCa rates jumped 43% through 2018, an APC of 6.5%.

The researchers did not find an increase in deaths from prostate cancer, but given the 5-7 years median survival, it might be too early to tell.

“The observation of a rising incidence of mPCa in itself does not imply that screening practices should be changed. The overall risk versus benefit of PSA-based screening is extremely complex and must take into account various other factors that impact the overall health of the community,” say investigators, led by Mihir Desai, MD, a clinical urology professor at USC. 

However, screening practices have already changed. The USPSTF withdrew its objections to screening in 2018 and instead recommended personalized decisionmaking for men 55-69 years old, citing new evidence that screening prevents metastatic disease and reduces PCa mortality more than previously recognized, Richard Hoffman, MD, MPH, an internal medicine professor at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an accompanying editorial.

The study’s trends in mPCa “might be transitory because the screening guidelines have” changed, Dr. Hoffman writes.

For now, clinicians should “consistently address screening with men who are healthy enough to benefit” from catching dangerous tumors early and engage them “in shared decisionmaking discussions to” strike the right balance between minimizing overdiagnosis and catching high-risk tumors before they spread, he said.

Easier said than done, but the field is advancing. Active surveillance, instead of surgery, for what seem to be low-risk tumors is one step in the right direction, Dr. Hoffman commented. 

No external funding was reported. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Procept Biorobotics and Auris Surgical. Dr. Hoffman reported royalties from UpToDate and fees from law firms as an expert witness on prostate cancer screening cases.

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

Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic, getting opioid prescriptions filled in a timely manner with the clinician’s drug of choice can feel like a Sisyphean task.

A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.

She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.

Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.

Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.

Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic, getting opioid prescriptions filled in a timely manner with the clinician’s drug of choice can feel like a Sisyphean task.

A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.

She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.

Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.

Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.

Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic, getting opioid prescriptions filled in a timely manner with the clinician’s drug of choice can feel like a Sisyphean task.

A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.

She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.

Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.

Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.

A study of testicular cancer mortality finds worse outcomes among Hispanic men, but better outcomes among Black men.

The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Incidence rates for testicular cancer in the United States have increased slowly in recent decades, said Anushka Ghosh, a clinical research coordinatory with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Her analysis found mortality increases from 1999 to 2019 to be significantly greater among Hispanic men. The increase was 0.0019 per 100,000, compared with a 0.0003 per 100,000 decrease among non-Hispanic men (comparison P = .010).

Among Black men, testicular cancer–specific mortality rates declined by 0.0007 per 100,000, compared with a marginally significant increase of 0.0006 per 100,000 among White men (P =.049).

“Given that testicular cancer generally has a favorable prognosis, it is concerning that the mortality rate for this disease is increasing,” said Sophia C. Kamran, MD, the study’s lead author and a radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Dr. Kamran urged new efforts to understand these trends and to make testicular cancer care more accessible for all patients.

Ms. Ghosh said that other researchers have identified the same disparity among Hispanic men with prostate cancer. “Even though testicular cancer is a rare, our finding warrants further investigation to find the basis of these disparities to better serve the Hispanic community.”

Other studies have shown higher likelihood of later stage diagnosis and worse survival outcomes among Black patients.

No funding sources were reported for this study.

A study of testicular cancer mortality finds worse outcomes among Hispanic men, but better outcomes among Black men.

The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Incidence rates for testicular cancer in the United States have increased slowly in recent decades, said Anushka Ghosh, a clinical research coordinatory with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Her analysis found mortality increases from 1999 to 2019 to be significantly greater among Hispanic men. The increase was 0.0019 per 100,000, compared with a 0.0003 per 100,000 decrease among non-Hispanic men (comparison P = .010).

Among Black men, testicular cancer–specific mortality rates declined by 0.0007 per 100,000, compared with a marginally significant increase of 0.0006 per 100,000 among White men (P =.049).

“Given that testicular cancer generally has a favorable prognosis, it is concerning that the mortality rate for this disease is increasing,” said Sophia C. Kamran, MD, the study’s lead author and a radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Dr. Kamran urged new efforts to understand these trends and to make testicular cancer care more accessible for all patients.

Ms. Ghosh said that other researchers have identified the same disparity among Hispanic men with prostate cancer. “Even though testicular cancer is a rare, our finding warrants further investigation to find the basis of these disparities to better serve the Hispanic community.”

Other studies have shown higher likelihood of later stage diagnosis and worse survival outcomes among Black patients.

No funding sources were reported for this study.

A study of testicular cancer mortality finds worse outcomes among Hispanic men, but better outcomes among Black men.

The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Incidence rates for testicular cancer in the United States have increased slowly in recent decades, said Anushka Ghosh, a clinical research coordinatory with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Her analysis found mortality increases from 1999 to 2019 to be significantly greater among Hispanic men. The increase was 0.0019 per 100,000, compared with a 0.0003 per 100,000 decrease among non-Hispanic men (comparison P = .010).

Among Black men, testicular cancer–specific mortality rates declined by 0.0007 per 100,000, compared with a marginally significant increase of 0.0006 per 100,000 among White men (P =.049).

“Given that testicular cancer generally has a favorable prognosis, it is concerning that the mortality rate for this disease is increasing,” said Sophia C. Kamran, MD, the study’s lead author and a radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Dr. Kamran urged new efforts to understand these trends and to make testicular cancer care more accessible for all patients.

Ms. Ghosh said that other researchers have identified the same disparity among Hispanic men with prostate cancer. “Even though testicular cancer is a rare, our finding warrants further investigation to find the basis of these disparities to better serve the Hispanic community.”

Other studies have shown higher likelihood of later stage diagnosis and worse survival outcomes among Black patients.

No funding sources were reported for this study.

Sotorasib, an approved treatment for lung cancer, has demonstrated clinically meaningful anticancer activity and tolerability in patients with heavily pretreated KRASG12C-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer.

The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“This is clinically meaningful for patients because there is not an established standard therapy for these patients once they get to a third line of treatment,” said the study’s author John H Strickler, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The study, called CodeBreaK100, is an open-label global phase 1 and 2 trial. It consists of the largest dataset evaluating efficacy and safety of a KRASG12C inhibitor in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

Survival with Food and Drug Administration–approved second-line therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 6 months with a 16% response rate. No therapies have demonstrated survival benefit after progression on first- and second-line chemotherapy. Among the 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors which harbor a KRAS mutation, 1%-2% are p.G12ac mutations. There are currently no approved treatments for KRASG12C-mutated PDAC.

The study included 38 patients (median age, 65.5 years; 76.3% male) with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic malignancies who received oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily).

The patients in the trial received one or more prior systemic therapies (79% received two; range, one to eight) or were intolerant or ineligible for available therapies. The primary endpoint was complete plus partial response by blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1).

Confirmed objective response were reported in 8 patients (21.1%; 95% confidence interval, 9.55%-37.22%) with disease control in 32 (84.2%; 95% CI, 68.75%-93.98%). The median duration of response was 5.7 months. After a median follow-up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6), and median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.1).

Once-daily sotorasib was well tolerated. The only treatment-related adverse events above grade 2 were six (15.8%) grade 3 events, with diarrhea in two and fatigue in two (each 5.3%), and single occurrences (2.6%) of abdominal pain, ALT/AST increase, pleural effusion and pulmonary embolism. Three adverse events were serious (7.9%), and no adverse events led to sotorasib discontinuation or were fatal.

Dr. Strickler described the case of a 64-year-old female with stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, who had baseline metastatic lesions in the liver, lymph nodes, lung and peritoneum. She received prior FOLFIRINOX first line until disease progression. With once-daily sotorasib, time to treatment response was 1.3 month, duration of response was 5.8 months, progression-free survival and overall were 7.1 months each.

Pointing to the centrally confirmed objective response rate of 21.1% and the disease control rate of 84.2%, Dr. Strickler observed in an interview that the CodeBreaK100 data support further exploration of sotorasib in this population with high unmet medical need and that based on these data, the CodeBreaK 100 clinical trial will be expanded to enroll more patients with pancreatic cancer and other tumor types.

The study was funded by Amgen.

Sotorasib, an approved treatment for lung cancer, has demonstrated clinically meaningful anticancer activity and tolerability in patients with heavily pretreated KRASG12C-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer.

The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“This is clinically meaningful for patients because there is not an established standard therapy for these patients once they get to a third line of treatment,” said the study’s author John H Strickler, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The study, called CodeBreaK100, is an open-label global phase 1 and 2 trial. It consists of the largest dataset evaluating efficacy and safety of a KRASG12C inhibitor in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

Survival with Food and Drug Administration–approved second-line therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 6 months with a 16% response rate. No therapies have demonstrated survival benefit after progression on first- and second-line chemotherapy. Among the 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors which harbor a KRAS mutation, 1%-2% are p.G12ac mutations. There are currently no approved treatments for KRASG12C-mutated PDAC.

The study included 38 patients (median age, 65.5 years; 76.3% male) with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic malignancies who received oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily).

The patients in the trial received one or more prior systemic therapies (79% received two; range, one to eight) or were intolerant or ineligible for available therapies. The primary endpoint was complete plus partial response by blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1).

Confirmed objective response were reported in 8 patients (21.1%; 95% confidence interval, 9.55%-37.22%) with disease control in 32 (84.2%; 95% CI, 68.75%-93.98%). The median duration of response was 5.7 months. After a median follow-up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6), and median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.1).

Once-daily sotorasib was well tolerated. The only treatment-related adverse events above grade 2 were six (15.8%) grade 3 events, with diarrhea in two and fatigue in two (each 5.3%), and single occurrences (2.6%) of abdominal pain, ALT/AST increase, pleural effusion and pulmonary embolism. Three adverse events were serious (7.9%), and no adverse events led to sotorasib discontinuation or were fatal.

Dr. Strickler described the case of a 64-year-old female with stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, who had baseline metastatic lesions in the liver, lymph nodes, lung and peritoneum. She received prior FOLFIRINOX first line until disease progression. With once-daily sotorasib, time to treatment response was 1.3 month, duration of response was 5.8 months, progression-free survival and overall were 7.1 months each.

Pointing to the centrally confirmed objective response rate of 21.1% and the disease control rate of 84.2%, Dr. Strickler observed in an interview that the CodeBreaK100 data support further exploration of sotorasib in this population with high unmet medical need and that based on these data, the CodeBreaK 100 clinical trial will be expanded to enroll more patients with pancreatic cancer and other tumor types.

The study was funded by Amgen.

Sotorasib, an approved treatment for lung cancer, has demonstrated clinically meaningful anticancer activity and tolerability in patients with heavily pretreated KRASG12C-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer.

The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“This is clinically meaningful for patients because there is not an established standard therapy for these patients once they get to a third line of treatment,” said the study’s author John H Strickler, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The study, called CodeBreaK100, is an open-label global phase 1 and 2 trial. It consists of the largest dataset evaluating efficacy and safety of a KRASG12C inhibitor in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

Survival with Food and Drug Administration–approved second-line therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 6 months with a 16% response rate. No therapies have demonstrated survival benefit after progression on first- and second-line chemotherapy. Among the 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors which harbor a KRAS mutation, 1%-2% are p.G12ac mutations. There are currently no approved treatments for KRASG12C-mutated PDAC.

The study included 38 patients (median age, 65.5 years; 76.3% male) with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic malignancies who received oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily).

The patients in the trial received one or more prior systemic therapies (79% received two; range, one to eight) or were intolerant or ineligible for available therapies. The primary endpoint was complete plus partial response by blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1).

Confirmed objective response were reported in 8 patients (21.1%; 95% confidence interval, 9.55%-37.22%) with disease control in 32 (84.2%; 95% CI, 68.75%-93.98%). The median duration of response was 5.7 months. After a median follow-up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6), and median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.1).

Once-daily sotorasib was well tolerated. The only treatment-related adverse events above grade 2 were six (15.8%) grade 3 events, with diarrhea in two and fatigue in two (each 5.3%), and single occurrences (2.6%) of abdominal pain, ALT/AST increase, pleural effusion and pulmonary embolism. Three adverse events were serious (7.9%), and no adverse events led to sotorasib discontinuation or were fatal.

Dr. Strickler described the case of a 64-year-old female with stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, who had baseline metastatic lesions in the liver, lymph nodes, lung and peritoneum. She received prior FOLFIRINOX first line until disease progression. With once-daily sotorasib, time to treatment response was 1.3 month, duration of response was 5.8 months, progression-free survival and overall were 7.1 months each.

Pointing to the centrally confirmed objective response rate of 21.1% and the disease control rate of 84.2%, Dr. Strickler observed in an interview that the CodeBreaK100 data support further exploration of sotorasib in this population with high unmet medical need and that based on these data, the CodeBreaK 100 clinical trial will be expanded to enroll more patients with pancreatic cancer and other tumor types.

The study was funded by Amgen.