Genitourinary Cancer

Artera, the Los Altos, California–based developer of tools to diagnose cancer, has launched the first artificial intelligence (AI) test to guide patients in making informed decisions between active surveillance and active treatment based on an analysis of digital pathology images.

Trevor Royce, MD, MPH, senior medical director of Artera, said the new version of the ArteraAI Prostate Test helps patients with low-risk (Grade Group 1/Gleason 6) to favorable intermediate-risk (Grade Group 2/Gleason 3+4) prostate cancer choose between treatment or active surveillance.

The test estimates how a patient’s cancer may progress and predicts the benefit of treatment for localized prostate cancer. 

“The prognostic performance of the test has now been validated in a diverse cohort of patients, including those who have undergone active surveillance, radiation therapy, or had a radical prostatectomy,” said Dr. Royce, a faculty member in radiation oncology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “The prognostic risk result reflects the patient’s prognosis regardless of the treatment path chosen.”

Dr. Royce said the new test predicts the risk for developing distant metastasis in 10 years. For the population considering active surveillance, it also can predict the likelihood their cancer will show more aggressive features. The test does not make a clinical recommendation, he added.

“Ultimately, that’s a very personal decision between the patient and their physician, and we view it as supporting that decision-making process,” he said.

The test is available in all states but New York and California, where the company is now, in discussions with regulators for approval, according to Dr. Royce. He said the company is in discussion with private insurers to set reimbursement and payment rates. In January 2024, Medicare set a payment rate of $700 for the AI test, which carries no out-of-pocket costs for patients. 

The first indication for the test was for localized prostate cancer, prognosticating the risk for distant metastases and death from prostate cancer. It can also predict if an individual will benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dr. Royce said up to 60% of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer now can avoid ADT and its serious side effects, such as brain fog, weight gain, and reduction in muscle mass.

In March, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of 33 cancer centers included Artera as the first AI test in its Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Dr. Royce said active surveillance is a new application of the test. The test was initially developed on a foundational study of almost 22,000 pathology slides from nearly 7000 patients published in npj Digital Medicine in 2022.

Todd Morgan, MD, chief of the Division of Urologic Oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the foundational study, said the AI test adds another layer of data to making clinical decisions for lower-risk patients.

“The technology is a big deal. The ability to use digital images to make accurate prognostic estimates is pretty remarkable, and this is the first test in any disease site to do this,” Dr. Morgan said. “Ultimately, this means tests may someday be performed by just sending images rather than sending actual tissue to an outside laboratory. Is the AI test dramatically more accurate than the genomic platforms? That’s TBD [to be determined].”

Dr. Royce said Artera is now working on a version of its test to inform men with higher-risk prostate cancer how long ADT should last and what the prognosis is for patients who have undergone prostatectomy based on their surgical specimen. The current test uses samples from the prostate biopsy, which are processed in a central lab. 

Dr. Royce said the company would like to eventually perform the test using digital images of pathology slides only.

Dr. Morgan reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Artera, the Los Altos, California–based developer of tools to diagnose cancer, has launched the first artificial intelligence (AI) test to guide patients in making informed decisions between active surveillance and active treatment based on an analysis of digital pathology images.

Trevor Royce, MD, MPH, senior medical director of Artera, said the new version of the ArteraAI Prostate Test helps patients with low-risk (Grade Group 1/Gleason 6) to favorable intermediate-risk (Grade Group 2/Gleason 3+4) prostate cancer choose between treatment or active surveillance.

The test estimates how a patient’s cancer may progress and predicts the benefit of treatment for localized prostate cancer. 

“The prognostic performance of the test has now been validated in a diverse cohort of patients, including those who have undergone active surveillance, radiation therapy, or had a radical prostatectomy,” said Dr. Royce, a faculty member in radiation oncology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “The prognostic risk result reflects the patient’s prognosis regardless of the treatment path chosen.”

Dr. Royce said the new test predicts the risk for developing distant metastasis in 10 years. For the population considering active surveillance, it also can predict the likelihood their cancer will show more aggressive features. The test does not make a clinical recommendation, he added.

“Ultimately, that’s a very personal decision between the patient and their physician, and we view it as supporting that decision-making process,” he said.

The test is available in all states but New York and California, where the company is now, in discussions with regulators for approval, according to Dr. Royce. He said the company is in discussion with private insurers to set reimbursement and payment rates. In January 2024, Medicare set a payment rate of $700 for the AI test, which carries no out-of-pocket costs for patients. 

The first indication for the test was for localized prostate cancer, prognosticating the risk for distant metastases and death from prostate cancer. It can also predict if an individual will benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dr. Royce said up to 60% of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer now can avoid ADT and its serious side effects, such as brain fog, weight gain, and reduction in muscle mass.

In March, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of 33 cancer centers included Artera as the first AI test in its Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Dr. Royce said active surveillance is a new application of the test. The test was initially developed on a foundational study of almost 22,000 pathology slides from nearly 7000 patients published in npj Digital Medicine in 2022.

Todd Morgan, MD, chief of the Division of Urologic Oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the foundational study, said the AI test adds another layer of data to making clinical decisions for lower-risk patients.

“The technology is a big deal. The ability to use digital images to make accurate prognostic estimates is pretty remarkable, and this is the first test in any disease site to do this,” Dr. Morgan said. “Ultimately, this means tests may someday be performed by just sending images rather than sending actual tissue to an outside laboratory. Is the AI test dramatically more accurate than the genomic platforms? That’s TBD [to be determined].”

Dr. Royce said Artera is now working on a version of its test to inform men with higher-risk prostate cancer how long ADT should last and what the prognosis is for patients who have undergone prostatectomy based on their surgical specimen. The current test uses samples from the prostate biopsy, which are processed in a central lab. 

Dr. Royce said the company would like to eventually perform the test using digital images of pathology slides only.

Dr. Morgan reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Artera, the Los Altos, California–based developer of tools to diagnose cancer, has launched the first artificial intelligence (AI) test to guide patients in making informed decisions between active surveillance and active treatment based on an analysis of digital pathology images.

Trevor Royce, MD, MPH, senior medical director of Artera, said the new version of the ArteraAI Prostate Test helps patients with low-risk (Grade Group 1/Gleason 6) to favorable intermediate-risk (Grade Group 2/Gleason 3+4) prostate cancer choose between treatment or active surveillance.

The test estimates how a patient’s cancer may progress and predicts the benefit of treatment for localized prostate cancer. 

“The prognostic performance of the test has now been validated in a diverse cohort of patients, including those who have undergone active surveillance, radiation therapy, or had a radical prostatectomy,” said Dr. Royce, a faculty member in radiation oncology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “The prognostic risk result reflects the patient’s prognosis regardless of the treatment path chosen.”

Dr. Royce said the new test predicts the risk for developing distant metastasis in 10 years. For the population considering active surveillance, it also can predict the likelihood their cancer will show more aggressive features. The test does not make a clinical recommendation, he added.

“Ultimately, that’s a very personal decision between the patient and their physician, and we view it as supporting that decision-making process,” he said.

The test is available in all states but New York and California, where the company is now, in discussions with regulators for approval, according to Dr. Royce. He said the company is in discussion with private insurers to set reimbursement and payment rates. In January 2024, Medicare set a payment rate of $700 for the AI test, which carries no out-of-pocket costs for patients. 

The first indication for the test was for localized prostate cancer, prognosticating the risk for distant metastases and death from prostate cancer. It can also predict if an individual will benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dr. Royce said up to 60% of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer now can avoid ADT and its serious side effects, such as brain fog, weight gain, and reduction in muscle mass.

In March, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of 33 cancer centers included Artera as the first AI test in its Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Dr. Royce said active surveillance is a new application of the test. The test was initially developed on a foundational study of almost 22,000 pathology slides from nearly 7000 patients published in npj Digital Medicine in 2022.

Todd Morgan, MD, chief of the Division of Urologic Oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the foundational study, said the AI test adds another layer of data to making clinical decisions for lower-risk patients.

“The technology is a big deal. The ability to use digital images to make accurate prognostic estimates is pretty remarkable, and this is the first test in any disease site to do this,” Dr. Morgan said. “Ultimately, this means tests may someday be performed by just sending images rather than sending actual tissue to an outside laboratory. Is the AI test dramatically more accurate than the genomic platforms? That’s TBD [to be determined].”

Dr. Royce said Artera is now working on a version of its test to inform men with higher-risk prostate cancer how long ADT should last and what the prognosis is for patients who have undergone prostatectomy based on their surgical specimen. The current test uses samples from the prostate biopsy, which are processed in a central lab. 

Dr. Royce said the company would like to eventually perform the test using digital images of pathology slides only.

Dr. Morgan reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) (Tecelra, Adaptimmune LLC) to treat advanced synovial sarcoma. 

Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.

The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.

Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities. 

“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”

T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors. 

The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew. 

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.

“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.

The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.

The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) (Tecelra, Adaptimmune LLC) to treat advanced synovial sarcoma. 

Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.

The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.

Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities. 

“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”

T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors. 

The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew. 

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.

“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.

The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.

The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) (Tecelra, Adaptimmune LLC) to treat advanced synovial sarcoma. 

Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.

The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.

Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities. 

“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”

T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors. 

The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew. 

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.

“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.

The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.

The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and baseline bone pain at diagnosis have worse overall survival compared to those without bone pain, a post hoc study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate cancer often metastasizes to the bones, leading to pain and a reduced quality of life. While the relationship between bone pain and overall survival in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer is well-documented, its impact in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is less clear.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc secondary analysis using data from the SWOG-1216 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1279 men diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from 248 centers across the United States. Patients had received androgen deprivation therapy either with orteronel or bicalutamide.
• Among the 1197 patients (median age, 67.6 years) with data on bone pain included in the secondary analysis, 301 (23.5%) reported bone pain at baseline.
• The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response.

TAKEAWAY:

• The median overall survival for patients with baseline bone pain was 3.9 years compared with not reached (95% CI, 6.6 years to not reached) for those without bone pain at a median follow-up of 4 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.66; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients with bone pain had a shorter progression-free survival vs those without bone pain (median, 1.3 years vs 3.7 years; aHR, 1.46; P < .001).
• The complete prostate-specific antigen response rate at 7 months was also lower for patients with baseline bone pain (46.3% vs 66.3%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer “with baseline bone pain had worse survival outcomes than those without baseline bone pain,” the authors wrote. “These results highlight the need to consider bone pain in prognostic modeling, treatment selection, patient monitoring, and follow-up and suggest prioritizing these patients for clinical trials and immediate systemic treatment initiation.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Georges Gebrael, MD, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The post hoc design may introduce bias. Orteronel failed to receive regulatory approval, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study did not account for synchronous vs metachronous disease status, a known established prognostic factor.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute and Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Takeda Oncology Company). Several authors declared ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and baseline bone pain at diagnosis have worse overall survival compared to those without bone pain, a post hoc study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate cancer often metastasizes to the bones, leading to pain and a reduced quality of life. While the relationship between bone pain and overall survival in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer is well-documented, its impact in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is less clear.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc secondary analysis using data from the SWOG-1216 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1279 men diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from 248 centers across the United States. Patients had received androgen deprivation therapy either with orteronel or bicalutamide.
• Among the 1197 patients (median age, 67.6 years) with data on bone pain included in the secondary analysis, 301 (23.5%) reported bone pain at baseline.
• The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response.

TAKEAWAY:

• The median overall survival for patients with baseline bone pain was 3.9 years compared with not reached (95% CI, 6.6 years to not reached) for those without bone pain at a median follow-up of 4 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.66; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients with bone pain had a shorter progression-free survival vs those without bone pain (median, 1.3 years vs 3.7 years; aHR, 1.46; P < .001).
• The complete prostate-specific antigen response rate at 7 months was also lower for patients with baseline bone pain (46.3% vs 66.3%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer “with baseline bone pain had worse survival outcomes than those without baseline bone pain,” the authors wrote. “These results highlight the need to consider bone pain in prognostic modeling, treatment selection, patient monitoring, and follow-up and suggest prioritizing these patients for clinical trials and immediate systemic treatment initiation.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Georges Gebrael, MD, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The post hoc design may introduce bias. Orteronel failed to receive regulatory approval, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study did not account for synchronous vs metachronous disease status, a known established prognostic factor.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute and Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Takeda Oncology Company). Several authors declared ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and baseline bone pain at diagnosis have worse overall survival compared to those without bone pain, a post hoc study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate cancer often metastasizes to the bones, leading to pain and a reduced quality of life. While the relationship between bone pain and overall survival in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer is well-documented, its impact in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is less clear.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc secondary analysis using data from the SWOG-1216 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1279 men diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from 248 centers across the United States. Patients had received androgen deprivation therapy either with orteronel or bicalutamide.
• Among the 1197 patients (median age, 67.6 years) with data on bone pain included in the secondary analysis, 301 (23.5%) reported bone pain at baseline.
• The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response.

TAKEAWAY:

• The median overall survival for patients with baseline bone pain was 3.9 years compared with not reached (95% CI, 6.6 years to not reached) for those without bone pain at a median follow-up of 4 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.66; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients with bone pain had a shorter progression-free survival vs those without bone pain (median, 1.3 years vs 3.7 years; aHR, 1.46; P < .001).
• The complete prostate-specific antigen response rate at 7 months was also lower for patients with baseline bone pain (46.3% vs 66.3%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer “with baseline bone pain had worse survival outcomes than those without baseline bone pain,” the authors wrote. “These results highlight the need to consider bone pain in prognostic modeling, treatment selection, patient monitoring, and follow-up and suggest prioritizing these patients for clinical trials and immediate systemic treatment initiation.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Georges Gebrael, MD, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The post hoc design may introduce bias. Orteronel failed to receive regulatory approval, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study did not account for synchronous vs metachronous disease status, a known established prognostic factor.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute and Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Takeda Oncology Company). Several authors declared ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

TOPLINE:

Men at higher genetic risk for prostate cancer had more than a threefold increased risk for early death from the disease, and about one third of these deaths may have been preventable through healthy lifestyle choices, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• About one third of men die from prostate cancer before age 75, highlighting the need for prevention strategies that target high-risk populations.
• In the current study, researchers analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies — the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) — which included 19,607 men with a median age at inclusion of 59 years (MDCS) and 65.1 years (HPFS) followed from 1991 to 2019.
• Participants were categorized by genetic risk and lifestyle score. Genetic risk was defined using a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) for overall prostate cancer that included 400 genetic risk variants.
• A healthy lifestyle score was defined as 3-6, while an unhealthy lifestyle score was 0-2. Lifestyle factors included smoking, weight, physical activity, and diet.
• The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between genetic and lifestyle factors and prostate cancer death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combining the PRS and family history of cancer, 67% of men overall (13,186 of 19,607) were considered to have higher genetic risk, and about 30% overall had an unhealthy lifestyle score of 0-2.
• Men at higher genetic risk accounted for 88% (94 of 107) of early prostate cancer deaths.
• Compared with men at lower genetic risk, those at higher genetic risk had more than a threefold higher rate of early prostate cancer death (HR, 3.26) and more than a twofold increased rate of late prostate cancer death (HR, 2.26) as well as a higher lifetime risk for prostate cancer death.
• Among men at higher genetic risk, an unhealthy lifestyle was associated with a higher risk of early prostate cancer death, with smoking and a BMI of ≥ 30 being significant factors. Depending on the definition of a healthy lifestyle, the researchers estimated that 22%-36% of early prostate cancer deaths among men at higher genetic risk might be preventable.

IN PRACTICE:

“Based on data from two prospective cohort studies, this analysis provides evidence for targeting men at increased genetic risk with prevention strategies aimed at reducing premature deaths from prostate cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Anna Plym, PhD, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, was published online on July 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in prostate cancer testing and treatment may account for some of the observed association between a healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer death. This analysis provides an estimate of what is achievable in terms of prevention had everyone adopted a healthy lifestyle. The authors only considered factors at study entry, which would not include changes that happen later.

DISCLOSURES:

The study authors reported several disclosures. Fredrik Wiklund, PhD, received grants from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, and WebMD, and stock options and personal fees from Cortechs Labs outside the submitted work. Adam S. Kibel, MD, received personal fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellvax, Merck, and Roche and served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Candel outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Men at higher genetic risk for prostate cancer had more than a threefold increased risk for early death from the disease, and about one third of these deaths may have been preventable through healthy lifestyle choices, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• About one third of men die from prostate cancer before age 75, highlighting the need for prevention strategies that target high-risk populations.
• In the current study, researchers analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies — the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) — which included 19,607 men with a median age at inclusion of 59 years (MDCS) and 65.1 years (HPFS) followed from 1991 to 2019.
• Participants were categorized by genetic risk and lifestyle score. Genetic risk was defined using a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) for overall prostate cancer that included 400 genetic risk variants.
• A healthy lifestyle score was defined as 3-6, while an unhealthy lifestyle score was 0-2. Lifestyle factors included smoking, weight, physical activity, and diet.
• The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between genetic and lifestyle factors and prostate cancer death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combining the PRS and family history of cancer, 67% of men overall (13,186 of 19,607) were considered to have higher genetic risk, and about 30% overall had an unhealthy lifestyle score of 0-2.
• Men at higher genetic risk accounted for 88% (94 of 107) of early prostate cancer deaths.
• Compared with men at lower genetic risk, those at higher genetic risk had more than a threefold higher rate of early prostate cancer death (HR, 3.26) and more than a twofold increased rate of late prostate cancer death (HR, 2.26) as well as a higher lifetime risk for prostate cancer death.
• Among men at higher genetic risk, an unhealthy lifestyle was associated with a higher risk of early prostate cancer death, with smoking and a BMI of ≥ 30 being significant factors. Depending on the definition of a healthy lifestyle, the researchers estimated that 22%-36% of early prostate cancer deaths among men at higher genetic risk might be preventable.

IN PRACTICE:

“Based on data from two prospective cohort studies, this analysis provides evidence for targeting men at increased genetic risk with prevention strategies aimed at reducing premature deaths from prostate cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Anna Plym, PhD, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, was published online on July 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in prostate cancer testing and treatment may account for some of the observed association between a healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer death. This analysis provides an estimate of what is achievable in terms of prevention had everyone adopted a healthy lifestyle. The authors only considered factors at study entry, which would not include changes that happen later.

DISCLOSURES:

The study authors reported several disclosures. Fredrik Wiklund, PhD, received grants from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, and WebMD, and stock options and personal fees from Cortechs Labs outside the submitted work. Adam S. Kibel, MD, received personal fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellvax, Merck, and Roche and served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Candel outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Men at higher genetic risk for prostate cancer had more than a threefold increased risk for early death from the disease, and about one third of these deaths may have been preventable through healthy lifestyle choices, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• About one third of men die from prostate cancer before age 75, highlighting the need for prevention strategies that target high-risk populations.
• In the current study, researchers analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies — the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) — which included 19,607 men with a median age at inclusion of 59 years (MDCS) and 65.1 years (HPFS) followed from 1991 to 2019.
• Participants were categorized by genetic risk and lifestyle score. Genetic risk was defined using a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) for overall prostate cancer that included 400 genetic risk variants.
• A healthy lifestyle score was defined as 3-6, while an unhealthy lifestyle score was 0-2. Lifestyle factors included smoking, weight, physical activity, and diet.
• The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between genetic and lifestyle factors and prostate cancer death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combining the PRS and family history of cancer, 67% of men overall (13,186 of 19,607) were considered to have higher genetic risk, and about 30% overall had an unhealthy lifestyle score of 0-2.
• Men at higher genetic risk accounted for 88% (94 of 107) of early prostate cancer deaths.
• Compared with men at lower genetic risk, those at higher genetic risk had more than a threefold higher rate of early prostate cancer death (HR, 3.26) and more than a twofold increased rate of late prostate cancer death (HR, 2.26) as well as a higher lifetime risk for prostate cancer death.
• Among men at higher genetic risk, an unhealthy lifestyle was associated with a higher risk of early prostate cancer death, with smoking and a BMI of ≥ 30 being significant factors. Depending on the definition of a healthy lifestyle, the researchers estimated that 22%-36% of early prostate cancer deaths among men at higher genetic risk might be preventable.

IN PRACTICE:

“Based on data from two prospective cohort studies, this analysis provides evidence for targeting men at increased genetic risk with prevention strategies aimed at reducing premature deaths from prostate cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Anna Plym, PhD, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, was published online on July 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in prostate cancer testing and treatment may account for some of the observed association between a healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer death. This analysis provides an estimate of what is achievable in terms of prevention had everyone adopted a healthy lifestyle. The authors only considered factors at study entry, which would not include changes that happen later.

DISCLOSURES:

The study authors reported several disclosures. Fredrik Wiklund, PhD, received grants from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, and WebMD, and stock options and personal fees from Cortechs Labs outside the submitted work. Adam S. Kibel, MD, received personal fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellvax, Merck, and Roche and served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Candel outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway looks like a set of guidelines, but it’s really something unique. As attendees learned at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting in Detroit in June, the clinical pathways are designed to point the way toward a standard ideal treatment for the majority of cases, not just to suggest a number of possible options.

“Pathways will always offer one scenario. They try to get oncologists to practice in a similar fashion so things can be managed more uniformly,” Michael M. Goodman, MD, told Federal Practitioner prior to the AVAHO meeting that was focused on prostate cancer care. Goodman is an associate professor of medicine with Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and helped develop the VA genitourinary oncology pathways.

“The overall goal is not just to standardize care as much as possible but also to synthesize the best and most cost-effective practices,” Goodman said. For example, “If you have 5 different therapies, and they all have about the same efficacy and safety, and 1 is less costly than the other 4, then it would make sense to choose that.”

The VA has offered pathways for multiple types of cancer since 2021, and the pathway for prostate cancer is among the most comprehensive. The VA system updated the pathway in March 2024, is available online both via SharePoint and externally.

“It goes through the entire gamut from screening, diagnosis, and management to end of life,” Goodman explained. Multiple disciplines, from primary care and surgery to genetics and imaging, can rely on the pathway to assist decision-making.

In terms of screening, the pathway offers a flow map guiding the screening choices. In patients aged ≤ 54 years, only certain high-risk groups, such as African Americans and those with a family history of prostate cancer, should be screened. From ages 54 to 69 years, patients should be consulted as part of a shared decision making process, while screening is not recommended for patients aged ≥ 70 years.

Pathway flow maps also provide information about diagnostic standards, evaluation of the newly diagnosed, risk stratification, molecular testing, and end-of-life care.

Goodman says the pathway is now integrated into the VA electronic health record system via a template so clinicians can easily document pathway use. This allows the VA to track the use of the pathways locally, regionally, and nationally track the use of the pathways.

Clinicians are not mandated to follow every step in the pathway, but Goodman said the goal is > 80% adherence. If clinicians follow the standards, he said, “you’re considering efficacy, safety, and cost for that veteran.”

Prospective data suggests that adherence to the pathway eliminates certain disparities. African American veterans, for example, are as well-represented or even better represented than White veterans in prostate cancer care when pathways are followed.

Why might clinicians veer from the pathway? “If you’re seeing a patient who was treated in the community with drug X, but drug Y is chosen by the pathway, you can carry on with the previous care.” Alternatively, in some cases, patients may not tolerate the pathway standard, Goodman noted.

Goodman reports that he consults the pathway every day. “It’s helped standardize the care I provide to ensure there’s no gaps in how I’m treating patients.”

The newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway looks like a set of guidelines, but it’s really something unique. As attendees learned at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting in Detroit in June, the clinical pathways are designed to point the way toward a standard ideal treatment for the majority of cases, not just to suggest a number of possible options.

“Pathways will always offer one scenario. They try to get oncologists to practice in a similar fashion so things can be managed more uniformly,” Michael M. Goodman, MD, told Federal Practitioner prior to the AVAHO meeting that was focused on prostate cancer care. Goodman is an associate professor of medicine with Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and helped develop the VA genitourinary oncology pathways.

“The overall goal is not just to standardize care as much as possible but also to synthesize the best and most cost-effective practices,” Goodman said. For example, “If you have 5 different therapies, and they all have about the same efficacy and safety, and 1 is less costly than the other 4, then it would make sense to choose that.”

The VA has offered pathways for multiple types of cancer since 2021, and the pathway for prostate cancer is among the most comprehensive. The VA system updated the pathway in March 2024, is available online both via SharePoint and externally.

“It goes through the entire gamut from screening, diagnosis, and management to end of life,” Goodman explained. Multiple disciplines, from primary care and surgery to genetics and imaging, can rely on the pathway to assist decision-making.

In terms of screening, the pathway offers a flow map guiding the screening choices. In patients aged ≤ 54 years, only certain high-risk groups, such as African Americans and those with a family history of prostate cancer, should be screened. From ages 54 to 69 years, patients should be consulted as part of a shared decision making process, while screening is not recommended for patients aged ≥ 70 years.

Pathway flow maps also provide information about diagnostic standards, evaluation of the newly diagnosed, risk stratification, molecular testing, and end-of-life care.

Goodman says the pathway is now integrated into the VA electronic health record system via a template so clinicians can easily document pathway use. This allows the VA to track the use of the pathways locally, regionally, and nationally track the use of the pathways.

Clinicians are not mandated to follow every step in the pathway, but Goodman said the goal is > 80% adherence. If clinicians follow the standards, he said, “you’re considering efficacy, safety, and cost for that veteran.”

Prospective data suggests that adherence to the pathway eliminates certain disparities. African American veterans, for example, are as well-represented or even better represented than White veterans in prostate cancer care when pathways are followed.

Why might clinicians veer from the pathway? “If you’re seeing a patient who was treated in the community with drug X, but drug Y is chosen by the pathway, you can carry on with the previous care.” Alternatively, in some cases, patients may not tolerate the pathway standard, Goodman noted.

Goodman reports that he consults the pathway every day. “It’s helped standardize the care I provide to ensure there’s no gaps in how I’m treating patients.”

The newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway looks like a set of guidelines, but it’s really something unique. As attendees learned at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting in Detroit in June, the clinical pathways are designed to point the way toward a standard ideal treatment for the majority of cases, not just to suggest a number of possible options.

“Pathways will always offer one scenario. They try to get oncologists to practice in a similar fashion so things can be managed more uniformly,” Michael M. Goodman, MD, told Federal Practitioner prior to the AVAHO meeting that was focused on prostate cancer care. Goodman is an associate professor of medicine with Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and helped develop the VA genitourinary oncology pathways.

“The overall goal is not just to standardize care as much as possible but also to synthesize the best and most cost-effective practices,” Goodman said. For example, “If you have 5 different therapies, and they all have about the same efficacy and safety, and 1 is less costly than the other 4, then it would make sense to choose that.”

The VA has offered pathways for multiple types of cancer since 2021, and the pathway for prostate cancer is among the most comprehensive. The VA system updated the pathway in March 2024, is available online both via SharePoint and externally.

“It goes through the entire gamut from screening, diagnosis, and management to end of life,” Goodman explained. Multiple disciplines, from primary care and surgery to genetics and imaging, can rely on the pathway to assist decision-making.

In terms of screening, the pathway offers a flow map guiding the screening choices. In patients aged ≤ 54 years, only certain high-risk groups, such as African Americans and those with a family history of prostate cancer, should be screened. From ages 54 to 69 years, patients should be consulted as part of a shared decision making process, while screening is not recommended for patients aged ≥ 70 years.

Pathway flow maps also provide information about diagnostic standards, evaluation of the newly diagnosed, risk stratification, molecular testing, and end-of-life care.

Goodman says the pathway is now integrated into the VA electronic health record system via a template so clinicians can easily document pathway use. This allows the VA to track the use of the pathways locally, regionally, and nationally track the use of the pathways.

Clinicians are not mandated to follow every step in the pathway, but Goodman said the goal is > 80% adherence. If clinicians follow the standards, he said, “you’re considering efficacy, safety, and cost for that veteran.”

Prospective data suggests that adherence to the pathway eliminates certain disparities. African American veterans, for example, are as well-represented or even better represented than White veterans in prostate cancer care when pathways are followed.

Why might clinicians veer from the pathway? “If you’re seeing a patient who was treated in the community with drug X, but drug Y is chosen by the pathway, you can carry on with the previous care.” Alternatively, in some cases, patients may not tolerate the pathway standard, Goodman noted.

Goodman reports that he consults the pathway every day. “It’s helped standardize the care I provide to ensure there’s no gaps in how I’m treating patients.”