Genitourinary Cancer

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: Welcome to another episode of Sex Matters. I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin. I’m a urologist and sexual medicine specialist based in the Washington, DC area, and I interview amazingly cool people doing research in sexual medicine.

I heard an incredible lecture while I was at the Mayo Clinic urology conference by Dr. Stacy Loeb, who is a wonderful researcher of all things prostate cancer and men’s health, who is now talking more plant-based diets. Her lecture was so good, I begged her to join me for this discussion.

Dr. Loeb, I would love for you to introduce yourself.

Stacy Loeb, MD: I’m Dr. Loeb. I’m a urologist at New York University in the Manhattan VA, and I recently became board certified in lifestyle medicine because it’s so important for sexual health and, really, everything that we do.

Dr. Rubin: You recently became very interested in studying plant-based diets. How did that start, and how has the research evolved over time?

Dr. Loeb: It’s really amazing. For one thing, more of our patients with prostate cancer die of heart disease than of prostate cancer. And erectile dysfunction is really an early warning sign of cardiovascular disease. We felt like it was incumbent upon us, even within urology and sexual medicine, to better understand the basis for lifestyle modification that can help with these issues. We started doing some research on it, looking at men who follow more plant-based diets, and we found that they have a lower risk for fatal prostate cancer and are less likely to have erectile dysfunction.

Dr. Rubin: Tell us more about what you found for erectile dysfunction. How much benefit do people get by switching to a plant-based diet?

Dr. Loeb: First we looked at erectile function in men without prostate cancer in the health professionals follow-up study, a very large cohort study out of Harvard University. We found that among omnivorous people, those who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food were less likely to have incident erectile dysfunction. Then, we published a new paper looking at patients with prostate cancer. These men have extra challenges for sexual function because in addition to the standard cardiovascular changes with aging, prostate cancer treatment can affect the nerves that are involved in erections. But amazingly, even in that population, we found that the men who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food had better scores for erectile function.

That was really good news, and it’s a win-win. There is no reason not to counsel our patients to eat more plant-based foods. Meat is not masculine. Meat is associated with a higher risk for erectile dysfunction and is considered carcinogenic. It’s just something that we should try to stay away from.

Dr. Rubin: How do you counsel patients who might not be ready to go fully plant-based? Is a little better than nothing? How do you even start these conversations with people? Do you have any tips for primary care doctors?

Dr. Loeb: Great question. A little bit is very much better than nothing. In fact, in the health professionals follow-up study, we actually looked at quintiles of people who ate the most meat and animal-based foods and the least plant-based foods all the way up to the most plant-based and the least animal-based diets. Along that spectrum, it really does make a big difference. Anywhere that patients can start from is definitely better than nothing.

Simple things such as Meatless Monday or choosing a few days that they will give up animal-based foods will help. For some people, trying new things is easier than cutting things out, for example, trying a milk substitute such as oat, almond, or soy milk instead of dairy milk. That could be a great first step, or trying some dishes that don’t include meat — maybe a tofu stir fry or a taco or burrito without the meat.

There are many great options out there. In terms of resources for doctors, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a great website. They have fact sheets for a lot of the common questions that people ask such as how can I get enough protein or calcium on a plant-based diet? This isn’t a problem at all. In fact, Novak Djokovic and many other elite athletes eat plant-based diets, and they get enough protein with a much higher requirement than most of us who are not elite athletes. These fact sheets explain which plant foods are the best

I also like Nutritionfacts.org. They also have all kinds of great videos and resources. Both of these websites have recipes that were created by doctors and nutritionists.

We can suggest that our patients work with a nutritionist or join a virtual program. For example, Plant Powered here in New York has virtual plant-based jumpstart programs. People around the country can get in on programs that have nutritionists and health coaches — for people who want a boost.

Dr. Rubin: The data are really compelling. When you were speaking, not a person in the room was interested in having a steak that night for dinner, even with a steakhouse in the hotel.

What do you say to men who have prostate cancer or suffer from erectile dysfunction? Do any data show that by going plant-based you may show improvements? We have recent studies that show that regular exercise might be as good as Viagra.

Dr. Loeb: It’s definitely not too late, even if you’ve already been diagnosed with these conditions. In my own practice, I have seen changes in patients. In fact, one of the case scenarios that I submitted for the lifestyle medicine boards was a patient who adopted a whole food, plant-based diet and no longer uses Viagra. This is definitely something that’s possible to do with intensive lifestyle modification.

Dr. Rubin: Maybe vegetables are the new sexual health aide. How can people find out more? I know you have a Sirius XM radio show.

Dr. Loeb: It’s the Men’s Health Show on Sirius XM channel 110. It’s on Wednesdays from 6:00 to 8:00 PM ET, or you can listen to it on demand anytime through the Sirius XM app.

Dr. Rubin: You have done an enormous amount of research in prostate cancer and sexual medicine. You are an all-star in the field. Thank you for sharing all of your knowledge about plant-based diets. You’ve given us all a lot to think about today.

Dr. Rubin has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker for Sprout; received research grant from Maternal Medical; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: Welcome to another episode of Sex Matters. I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin. I’m a urologist and sexual medicine specialist based in the Washington, DC area, and I interview amazingly cool people doing research in sexual medicine.

I heard an incredible lecture while I was at the Mayo Clinic urology conference by Dr. Stacy Loeb, who is a wonderful researcher of all things prostate cancer and men’s health, who is now talking more plant-based diets. Her lecture was so good, I begged her to join me for this discussion.

Dr. Loeb, I would love for you to introduce yourself.

Stacy Loeb, MD: I’m Dr. Loeb. I’m a urologist at New York University in the Manhattan VA, and I recently became board certified in lifestyle medicine because it’s so important for sexual health and, really, everything that we do.

Dr. Rubin: You recently became very interested in studying plant-based diets. How did that start, and how has the research evolved over time?

Dr. Loeb: It’s really amazing. For one thing, more of our patients with prostate cancer die of heart disease than of prostate cancer. And erectile dysfunction is really an early warning sign of cardiovascular disease. We felt like it was incumbent upon us, even within urology and sexual medicine, to better understand the basis for lifestyle modification that can help with these issues. We started doing some research on it, looking at men who follow more plant-based diets, and we found that they have a lower risk for fatal prostate cancer and are less likely to have erectile dysfunction.

Dr. Rubin: Tell us more about what you found for erectile dysfunction. How much benefit do people get by switching to a plant-based diet?

Dr. Loeb: First we looked at erectile function in men without prostate cancer in the health professionals follow-up study, a very large cohort study out of Harvard University. We found that among omnivorous people, those who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food were less likely to have incident erectile dysfunction. Then, we published a new paper looking at patients with prostate cancer. These men have extra challenges for sexual function because in addition to the standard cardiovascular changes with aging, prostate cancer treatment can affect the nerves that are involved in erections. But amazingly, even in that population, we found that the men who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food had better scores for erectile function.

That was really good news, and it’s a win-win. There is no reason not to counsel our patients to eat more plant-based foods. Meat is not masculine. Meat is associated with a higher risk for erectile dysfunction and is considered carcinogenic. It’s just something that we should try to stay away from.

Dr. Rubin: How do you counsel patients who might not be ready to go fully plant-based? Is a little better than nothing? How do you even start these conversations with people? Do you have any tips for primary care doctors?

Dr. Loeb: Great question. A little bit is very much better than nothing. In fact, in the health professionals follow-up study, we actually looked at quintiles of people who ate the most meat and animal-based foods and the least plant-based foods all the way up to the most plant-based and the least animal-based diets. Along that spectrum, it really does make a big difference. Anywhere that patients can start from is definitely better than nothing.

Simple things such as Meatless Monday or choosing a few days that they will give up animal-based foods will help. For some people, trying new things is easier than cutting things out, for example, trying a milk substitute such as oat, almond, or soy milk instead of dairy milk. That could be a great first step, or trying some dishes that don’t include meat — maybe a tofu stir fry or a taco or burrito without the meat.

There are many great options out there. In terms of resources for doctors, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a great website. They have fact sheets for a lot of the common questions that people ask such as how can I get enough protein or calcium on a plant-based diet? This isn’t a problem at all. In fact, Novak Djokovic and many other elite athletes eat plant-based diets, and they get enough protein with a much higher requirement than most of us who are not elite athletes. These fact sheets explain which plant foods are the best

I also like Nutritionfacts.org. They also have all kinds of great videos and resources. Both of these websites have recipes that were created by doctors and nutritionists.

We can suggest that our patients work with a nutritionist or join a virtual program. For example, Plant Powered here in New York has virtual plant-based jumpstart programs. People around the country can get in on programs that have nutritionists and health coaches — for people who want a boost.

Dr. Rubin: The data are really compelling. When you were speaking, not a person in the room was interested in having a steak that night for dinner, even with a steakhouse in the hotel.

What do you say to men who have prostate cancer or suffer from erectile dysfunction? Do any data show that by going plant-based you may show improvements? We have recent studies that show that regular exercise might be as good as Viagra.

Dr. Loeb: It’s definitely not too late, even if you’ve already been diagnosed with these conditions. In my own practice, I have seen changes in patients. In fact, one of the case scenarios that I submitted for the lifestyle medicine boards was a patient who adopted a whole food, plant-based diet and no longer uses Viagra. This is definitely something that’s possible to do with intensive lifestyle modification.

Dr. Rubin: Maybe vegetables are the new sexual health aide. How can people find out more? I know you have a Sirius XM radio show.

Dr. Loeb: It’s the Men’s Health Show on Sirius XM channel 110. It’s on Wednesdays from 6:00 to 8:00 PM ET, or you can listen to it on demand anytime through the Sirius XM app.

Dr. Rubin: You have done an enormous amount of research in prostate cancer and sexual medicine. You are an all-star in the field. Thank you for sharing all of your knowledge about plant-based diets. You’ve given us all a lot to think about today.

Dr. Rubin has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker for Sprout; received research grant from Maternal Medical; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: Welcome to another episode of Sex Matters. I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin. I’m a urologist and sexual medicine specialist based in the Washington, DC area, and I interview amazingly cool people doing research in sexual medicine.

I heard an incredible lecture while I was at the Mayo Clinic urology conference by Dr. Stacy Loeb, who is a wonderful researcher of all things prostate cancer and men’s health, who is now talking more plant-based diets. Her lecture was so good, I begged her to join me for this discussion.

Dr. Loeb, I would love for you to introduce yourself.

Stacy Loeb, MD: I’m Dr. Loeb. I’m a urologist at New York University in the Manhattan VA, and I recently became board certified in lifestyle medicine because it’s so important for sexual health and, really, everything that we do.

Dr. Rubin: You recently became very interested in studying plant-based diets. How did that start, and how has the research evolved over time?

Dr. Loeb: It’s really amazing. For one thing, more of our patients with prostate cancer die of heart disease than of prostate cancer. And erectile dysfunction is really an early warning sign of cardiovascular disease. We felt like it was incumbent upon us, even within urology and sexual medicine, to better understand the basis for lifestyle modification that can help with these issues. We started doing some research on it, looking at men who follow more plant-based diets, and we found that they have a lower risk for fatal prostate cancer and are less likely to have erectile dysfunction.

Dr. Rubin: Tell us more about what you found for erectile dysfunction. How much benefit do people get by switching to a plant-based diet?

Dr. Loeb: First we looked at erectile function in men without prostate cancer in the health professionals follow-up study, a very large cohort study out of Harvard University. We found that among omnivorous people, those who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food were less likely to have incident erectile dysfunction. Then, we published a new paper looking at patients with prostate cancer. These men have extra challenges for sexual function because in addition to the standard cardiovascular changes with aging, prostate cancer treatment can affect the nerves that are involved in erections. But amazingly, even in that population, we found that the men who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food had better scores for erectile function.

That was really good news, and it’s a win-win. There is no reason not to counsel our patients to eat more plant-based foods. Meat is not masculine. Meat is associated with a higher risk for erectile dysfunction and is considered carcinogenic. It’s just something that we should try to stay away from.

Dr. Rubin: How do you counsel patients who might not be ready to go fully plant-based? Is a little better than nothing? How do you even start these conversations with people? Do you have any tips for primary care doctors?

Dr. Loeb: Great question. A little bit is very much better than nothing. In fact, in the health professionals follow-up study, we actually looked at quintiles of people who ate the most meat and animal-based foods and the least plant-based foods all the way up to the most plant-based and the least animal-based diets. Along that spectrum, it really does make a big difference. Anywhere that patients can start from is definitely better than nothing.

Simple things such as Meatless Monday or choosing a few days that they will give up animal-based foods will help. For some people, trying new things is easier than cutting things out, for example, trying a milk substitute such as oat, almond, or soy milk instead of dairy milk. That could be a great first step, or trying some dishes that don’t include meat — maybe a tofu stir fry or a taco or burrito without the meat.

There are many great options out there. In terms of resources for doctors, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a great website. They have fact sheets for a lot of the common questions that people ask such as how can I get enough protein or calcium on a plant-based diet? This isn’t a problem at all. In fact, Novak Djokovic and many other elite athletes eat plant-based diets, and they get enough protein with a much higher requirement than most of us who are not elite athletes. These fact sheets explain which plant foods are the best

I also like Nutritionfacts.org. They also have all kinds of great videos and resources. Both of these websites have recipes that were created by doctors and nutritionists.

We can suggest that our patients work with a nutritionist or join a virtual program. For example, Plant Powered here in New York has virtual plant-based jumpstart programs. People around the country can get in on programs that have nutritionists and health coaches — for people who want a boost.

Dr. Rubin: The data are really compelling. When you were speaking, not a person in the room was interested in having a steak that night for dinner, even with a steakhouse in the hotel.

What do you say to men who have prostate cancer or suffer from erectile dysfunction? Do any data show that by going plant-based you may show improvements? We have recent studies that show that regular exercise might be as good as Viagra.

Dr. Loeb: It’s definitely not too late, even if you’ve already been diagnosed with these conditions. In my own practice, I have seen changes in patients. In fact, one of the case scenarios that I submitted for the lifestyle medicine boards was a patient who adopted a whole food, plant-based diet and no longer uses Viagra. This is definitely something that’s possible to do with intensive lifestyle modification.

Dr. Rubin: Maybe vegetables are the new sexual health aide. How can people find out more? I know you have a Sirius XM radio show.

Dr. Loeb: It’s the Men’s Health Show on Sirius XM channel 110. It’s on Wednesdays from 6:00 to 8:00 PM ET, or you can listen to it on demand anytime through the Sirius XM app.

Dr. Rubin: You have done an enormous amount of research in prostate cancer and sexual medicine. You are an all-star in the field. Thank you for sharing all of your knowledge about plant-based diets. You’ve given us all a lot to think about today.

Dr. Rubin has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker for Sprout; received research grant from Maternal Medical; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.