User login
What is the future for multicancer early-detection tests?
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.
Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.
Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?
Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.
Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.
Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.
Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?
Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.
A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.
In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.
Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?
Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.
These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.
The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!
Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?
Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.
Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?
Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]
This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.
Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?
Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.
Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.
The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.
According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.
Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.
Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?
Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.
Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.
Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.
Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?
Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.
A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.
In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.
Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?
Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.
These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.
The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!
Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?
Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.
Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?
Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]
This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.
Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?
Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.
Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.
The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.
According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.
Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.
Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?
Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.
Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.
Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.
Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?
Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.
A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.
In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.
Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?
Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.
These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.
The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!
Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?
Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.
Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?
Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]
This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.
Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?
Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.
Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.
The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.
According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Cervical cancer: Vaginal dilation linked to less stenosis after treatment
SAN DIEGO – , a new 5-year prospective study reports.
Findings from the EMBRACE study were presented at the annual American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) meeting and included 882 women with locally advanced cervical cancer. Of those, 565 women reported regular vaginal dilation and/or sexual intercourse during at least three of their follow-up assessments. Patients who reported both dilation and intercourse had the lowest risk of developing vaginal stenosis of grade ≥ 2 (18%) at 5 years.
The other 317 women were described in the study as having no penetration (13%) or infrequent penetration (23%) and were more likely to experience stenosis of grade ≥ 2 (36% and 37% respectively (P ≤ 0.001)), reported psycho-oncologist, clinical psychologist Kathrin Kirchheiner, PhD, MSc, of the Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues at ASTRO 2023.
While noting that the observational study cannot determine cause and effect, “these long-term data support clinical recommendations worldwide,” said Dr. Kirchheiner at an ASTRO news briefing.
According to Dr. Kirchheiner, external beam radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and internal brachytherapy are the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer that cannot be removed by surgery.
Studies have shown that the treatment can cause vaginal shortening and narrowing due to the formation of scar tissue, she said. As a result, there can be “permanent changes in the vaginal tissue that lead to a loss of elasticity. This can often cause problems during the gynecological follow-up examination and pain during sexual intercourse.”
In an earlier reported 2-year analysis of the EMBRACE study (median follow-up of 15 months), the study authors reported that 89% of 588 patients developed grade ≥ 1 vaginal stenosis following their treatment, with 29% at grade ≥ 2 and 3.6% at grade ≥ 3.
The use of medical dilators is commonly recommended after cervical cancer treatment to stretch the vaginal canal. Women are instructed to increase the dilator size over time. But research suggests that adherence may be low.
For the observational, multi-institution study, researchers tracked 1,416 cervical cancer patients from 2008 to 2015 for a median follow-up of 5 years. The new analysis focuses on 882 patients with at least three follow-up assessments, with a median age of 49. Researchers reported that patients who didn’t engage in intercourse or use dilators were most likely to experience vaginal stenosis (37%) vs. those who did both (18%), those who just had intercourse (23%), and those who only used dilators (28%) (P ≤ 0.001).
The findings were confirmed in a multivariable analysis with adjustments for tumor infiltration, age, treatment parameters, and hormonal replacement therapy, the researchers reported.
Regular sexual activity, vaginal dilation, or both were linked to higher risk of mild vaginal dryness at grade ≥ 1 (72% vs. 67% in the no/infrequent penetration group, P = 0.028) and vaginal bleeding at grade ≥ 1 (61% vs. 34% in the no/infrequent penetration group, P ≤ 0.001). There was no link to higher rates of vaginal mucositis.
Dr. Kirchheiner noted that these symptoms can be treated with lubricants, moisturizer, and hormonal replacement therapy.
As for limitations, Dr. Kirchheiner, in a press release provided by ASTRO, noted that “we cannot and should not randomize patients in a clinical trial into groups with and without regular dilation.” She also noted that future research should explore why sexual intercourse had slightly better results than use of dilators, a finding that could be related to blood flow during sexual arousal.
In comments at the news briefing, Akila Viswanathan, MD, MPH, MSc, director of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, praised the new study and noted that quality of life after cervical cancer treatment is “very understudied.”
Vaginal side effects in particular are underreported because physicians often fail to ask about them and patients “are hesitant to accurately describe what they’re feeling,” she said.
The interventions of providing medical dilators and encouraging sexual activity are “very low cost,” Dr. Viswanathan said. But she noted that women – especially older women – may “find the concepts of using a dilator very difficult to understand.”
The study offers the “best evidence to date” supporting vaginal dilation, said Yale University, New Haven, Conn., radiation oncologist Shari Damast, MD, in an interview. It has “a large dataset, longitudinal design, lengthy follow-up, and uses validated tools of measurement. It gives us strong confidence in the efficacy of vaginal dilators.”
In an interview, Deborah Watkins Bruner, RN, PhD, senior vice president for research at Emory University, Atlanta, also praised the research. But she noted that it’s not clear how often vaginal dilation/sexual intercourse should be performed in order to reduce stenosis. “In addition, it is clear that vaginal dilation only is not enough to treat the myriad of symptoms that survivors must deal with,” she said.
Dr. Bruner urged colleagues “to routinely assess symptoms at each visit and offer treatments which should include hormone replacement therapy, vaginal dilation, and appropriate referral for anxiety, depression, or marital problems.”
The study was funded by Elekta and Varian Medical System via the Medical University of Vienna. The study authors, Dr. Bruner, and Dr. Damast have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Viswanathan was not available.
SAN DIEGO – , a new 5-year prospective study reports.
Findings from the EMBRACE study were presented at the annual American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) meeting and included 882 women with locally advanced cervical cancer. Of those, 565 women reported regular vaginal dilation and/or sexual intercourse during at least three of their follow-up assessments. Patients who reported both dilation and intercourse had the lowest risk of developing vaginal stenosis of grade ≥ 2 (18%) at 5 years.
The other 317 women were described in the study as having no penetration (13%) or infrequent penetration (23%) and were more likely to experience stenosis of grade ≥ 2 (36% and 37% respectively (P ≤ 0.001)), reported psycho-oncologist, clinical psychologist Kathrin Kirchheiner, PhD, MSc, of the Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues at ASTRO 2023.
While noting that the observational study cannot determine cause and effect, “these long-term data support clinical recommendations worldwide,” said Dr. Kirchheiner at an ASTRO news briefing.
According to Dr. Kirchheiner, external beam radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and internal brachytherapy are the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer that cannot be removed by surgery.
Studies have shown that the treatment can cause vaginal shortening and narrowing due to the formation of scar tissue, she said. As a result, there can be “permanent changes in the vaginal tissue that lead to a loss of elasticity. This can often cause problems during the gynecological follow-up examination and pain during sexual intercourse.”
In an earlier reported 2-year analysis of the EMBRACE study (median follow-up of 15 months), the study authors reported that 89% of 588 patients developed grade ≥ 1 vaginal stenosis following their treatment, with 29% at grade ≥ 2 and 3.6% at grade ≥ 3.
The use of medical dilators is commonly recommended after cervical cancer treatment to stretch the vaginal canal. Women are instructed to increase the dilator size over time. But research suggests that adherence may be low.
For the observational, multi-institution study, researchers tracked 1,416 cervical cancer patients from 2008 to 2015 for a median follow-up of 5 years. The new analysis focuses on 882 patients with at least three follow-up assessments, with a median age of 49. Researchers reported that patients who didn’t engage in intercourse or use dilators were most likely to experience vaginal stenosis (37%) vs. those who did both (18%), those who just had intercourse (23%), and those who only used dilators (28%) (P ≤ 0.001).
The findings were confirmed in a multivariable analysis with adjustments for tumor infiltration, age, treatment parameters, and hormonal replacement therapy, the researchers reported.
Regular sexual activity, vaginal dilation, or both were linked to higher risk of mild vaginal dryness at grade ≥ 1 (72% vs. 67% in the no/infrequent penetration group, P = 0.028) and vaginal bleeding at grade ≥ 1 (61% vs. 34% in the no/infrequent penetration group, P ≤ 0.001). There was no link to higher rates of vaginal mucositis.
Dr. Kirchheiner noted that these symptoms can be treated with lubricants, moisturizer, and hormonal replacement therapy.
As for limitations, Dr. Kirchheiner, in a press release provided by ASTRO, noted that “we cannot and should not randomize patients in a clinical trial into groups with and without regular dilation.” She also noted that future research should explore why sexual intercourse had slightly better results than use of dilators, a finding that could be related to blood flow during sexual arousal.
In comments at the news briefing, Akila Viswanathan, MD, MPH, MSc, director of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, praised the new study and noted that quality of life after cervical cancer treatment is “very understudied.”
Vaginal side effects in particular are underreported because physicians often fail to ask about them and patients “are hesitant to accurately describe what they’re feeling,” she said.
The interventions of providing medical dilators and encouraging sexual activity are “very low cost,” Dr. Viswanathan said. But she noted that women – especially older women – may “find the concepts of using a dilator very difficult to understand.”
The study offers the “best evidence to date” supporting vaginal dilation, said Yale University, New Haven, Conn., radiation oncologist Shari Damast, MD, in an interview. It has “a large dataset, longitudinal design, lengthy follow-up, and uses validated tools of measurement. It gives us strong confidence in the efficacy of vaginal dilators.”
In an interview, Deborah Watkins Bruner, RN, PhD, senior vice president for research at Emory University, Atlanta, also praised the research. But she noted that it’s not clear how often vaginal dilation/sexual intercourse should be performed in order to reduce stenosis. “In addition, it is clear that vaginal dilation only is not enough to treat the myriad of symptoms that survivors must deal with,” she said.
Dr. Bruner urged colleagues “to routinely assess symptoms at each visit and offer treatments which should include hormone replacement therapy, vaginal dilation, and appropriate referral for anxiety, depression, or marital problems.”
The study was funded by Elekta and Varian Medical System via the Medical University of Vienna. The study authors, Dr. Bruner, and Dr. Damast have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Viswanathan was not available.
SAN DIEGO – , a new 5-year prospective study reports.
Findings from the EMBRACE study were presented at the annual American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) meeting and included 882 women with locally advanced cervical cancer. Of those, 565 women reported regular vaginal dilation and/or sexual intercourse during at least three of their follow-up assessments. Patients who reported both dilation and intercourse had the lowest risk of developing vaginal stenosis of grade ≥ 2 (18%) at 5 years.
The other 317 women were described in the study as having no penetration (13%) or infrequent penetration (23%) and were more likely to experience stenosis of grade ≥ 2 (36% and 37% respectively (P ≤ 0.001)), reported psycho-oncologist, clinical psychologist Kathrin Kirchheiner, PhD, MSc, of the Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues at ASTRO 2023.
While noting that the observational study cannot determine cause and effect, “these long-term data support clinical recommendations worldwide,” said Dr. Kirchheiner at an ASTRO news briefing.
According to Dr. Kirchheiner, external beam radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and internal brachytherapy are the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer that cannot be removed by surgery.
Studies have shown that the treatment can cause vaginal shortening and narrowing due to the formation of scar tissue, she said. As a result, there can be “permanent changes in the vaginal tissue that lead to a loss of elasticity. This can often cause problems during the gynecological follow-up examination and pain during sexual intercourse.”
In an earlier reported 2-year analysis of the EMBRACE study (median follow-up of 15 months), the study authors reported that 89% of 588 patients developed grade ≥ 1 vaginal stenosis following their treatment, with 29% at grade ≥ 2 and 3.6% at grade ≥ 3.
The use of medical dilators is commonly recommended after cervical cancer treatment to stretch the vaginal canal. Women are instructed to increase the dilator size over time. But research suggests that adherence may be low.
For the observational, multi-institution study, researchers tracked 1,416 cervical cancer patients from 2008 to 2015 for a median follow-up of 5 years. The new analysis focuses on 882 patients with at least three follow-up assessments, with a median age of 49. Researchers reported that patients who didn’t engage in intercourse or use dilators were most likely to experience vaginal stenosis (37%) vs. those who did both (18%), those who just had intercourse (23%), and those who only used dilators (28%) (P ≤ 0.001).
The findings were confirmed in a multivariable analysis with adjustments for tumor infiltration, age, treatment parameters, and hormonal replacement therapy, the researchers reported.
Regular sexual activity, vaginal dilation, or both were linked to higher risk of mild vaginal dryness at grade ≥ 1 (72% vs. 67% in the no/infrequent penetration group, P = 0.028) and vaginal bleeding at grade ≥ 1 (61% vs. 34% in the no/infrequent penetration group, P ≤ 0.001). There was no link to higher rates of vaginal mucositis.
Dr. Kirchheiner noted that these symptoms can be treated with lubricants, moisturizer, and hormonal replacement therapy.
As for limitations, Dr. Kirchheiner, in a press release provided by ASTRO, noted that “we cannot and should not randomize patients in a clinical trial into groups with and without regular dilation.” She also noted that future research should explore why sexual intercourse had slightly better results than use of dilators, a finding that could be related to blood flow during sexual arousal.
In comments at the news briefing, Akila Viswanathan, MD, MPH, MSc, director of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, praised the new study and noted that quality of life after cervical cancer treatment is “very understudied.”
Vaginal side effects in particular are underreported because physicians often fail to ask about them and patients “are hesitant to accurately describe what they’re feeling,” she said.
The interventions of providing medical dilators and encouraging sexual activity are “very low cost,” Dr. Viswanathan said. But she noted that women – especially older women – may “find the concepts of using a dilator very difficult to understand.”
The study offers the “best evidence to date” supporting vaginal dilation, said Yale University, New Haven, Conn., radiation oncologist Shari Damast, MD, in an interview. It has “a large dataset, longitudinal design, lengthy follow-up, and uses validated tools of measurement. It gives us strong confidence in the efficacy of vaginal dilators.”
In an interview, Deborah Watkins Bruner, RN, PhD, senior vice president for research at Emory University, Atlanta, also praised the research. But she noted that it’s not clear how often vaginal dilation/sexual intercourse should be performed in order to reduce stenosis. “In addition, it is clear that vaginal dilation only is not enough to treat the myriad of symptoms that survivors must deal with,” she said.
Dr. Bruner urged colleagues “to routinely assess symptoms at each visit and offer treatments which should include hormone replacement therapy, vaginal dilation, and appropriate referral for anxiety, depression, or marital problems.”
The study was funded by Elekta and Varian Medical System via the Medical University of Vienna. The study authors, Dr. Bruner, and Dr. Damast have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Viswanathan was not available.
AT ASTRO 2023
Cancer incidence has increased in patients under age 50
Recent data suggest that the incidence of early-onset cancer, defined as cancer diagnosed in people younger than 50 years, is on the rise in several countries. Two recent studies confirm this trend, including one published in early September in BMJ Oncology that presents worldwide data on the matter.
Early-onset cancer
Among them, early-onset breast cancer had the highest incidence (13.7) and mortality (3.5 per 100k) rates in the global population.
Tracheal (nasopharyngeal) and prostate cancer have increased the most rapidly since 1990, with annual percentage changes estimated at 2.28% and 2.23%, respectively. At the other end of the scale, cases of early-onset liver cancer dropped by around 2.88% year on year.
Increase in deaths
There were more than a million (1.06) cancer deaths among patients younger than 50 years in 2019, which is an increase of slightly less than 28% compared with the figures from 1990.
The top four early-onset cancers with the highest mortality and disability-adjusted life year rates among young adults in 2019 were early-onset breast; tracheal, bronchus and lung; stomach; and colorectal cancers. The mortality rates of early-onset kidney cancer and ovarian cancer showed the fastest increasing trends.
“These results contrast with a more traditionally held view of ‘typical’ cancers in adults aged under 50 years,” Ashleigh C. Hamilton, MD, an academic clinical lecturer, and Helen G. Coleman, PhD, a professor, both at Queen’s University Belfast’s Centre for Public Health in the United Kingdom, explained in an accompanying editorial. An important aspect of this study is that it tackled the issue of increasing cancer rates among young people on a global scale, they added. Here, the researchers made use of 2019 data from the Global Burden of Disease database for 29 types of cancer in 204 countries and regions.
Industrialized countries
The highest rates of early-onset cancer in 2019 were reported in North America, Australasia, and Western Europe. However, the burden of early-onset cancers in low- to middle-income countries is also of major public health concern. The highest death rates among patients younger than 50 years were in Oceania, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.
In low- or middle-income regions, early-onset cancer had a significantly higher impact on women than on men in terms of mortality and disease burden, the researchers reported.
On the basis of trends observed over the past 30 years, they estimate that the global incidence and deaths of early-onset cancer would increase by 31% and 21% in 2030, respectively, with 40-year-olds being the most affected.
Hypotheses and limitations
How can this increase in the incidence of cancer among patients younger than 50 years be explained? For the authors, genetic factors likely play a role. But dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium, and low in milk, etc.), alcohol consumption, and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers in patients under age 50 years. Physical inactivity, excess weight, and hyperglycemia were shown to be contributing factors.
The researchers recognized several limitations to their conclusions. First, the accuracy of Global Burden of Disease data was compromised by the quality of cancer registry data in different countries, which may have led to underreporting and underdiagnosis. Also, questions remain about how screening and early exposure to environmental factors can affect the observed trends.
For the authors of the editorial, “Full understanding of the reasons driving the observed trends remains elusive, although lifestyle factors are likely contributing, and novel areas of research such as antibiotic usage, the gut microbiome, outdoor air pollution, and early life exposures are being explored.”
They concluded, “Prevention and early detection measures are urgently required, along with identifying optimal treatment strategies for early-onset cancers, which should include a holistic approach addressing the unique supportive care needs of younger patients.”
The authors added, “It is worth exploring whether early screening and prevention programs for early-onset cancer should be expanded to include individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49, but further systematic studies and randomized trials are necessary to make a definitive determination.”
Trend in the United States
Between 2010 and 2019, although the incidence of cancer dropped in people over age 50 years in the United States, a study published in JAMA Network Open in August showed that the standardized incidence rate of early-onset cancer increased overall. More specifically, the rate increased in women but decreased in men.
In 2019, most early-onset cancer cases involved breast cancer. Between 2010 and 2019, gastrointestinal cancers saw the fastest rise. And among gastrointestinal cancers, those whose incidence rate increased the most rapidly were those affecting the appendix, the intrahepatic bile ducts, and the pancreas.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Recent data suggest that the incidence of early-onset cancer, defined as cancer diagnosed in people younger than 50 years, is on the rise in several countries. Two recent studies confirm this trend, including one published in early September in BMJ Oncology that presents worldwide data on the matter.
Early-onset cancer
Among them, early-onset breast cancer had the highest incidence (13.7) and mortality (3.5 per 100k) rates in the global population.
Tracheal (nasopharyngeal) and prostate cancer have increased the most rapidly since 1990, with annual percentage changes estimated at 2.28% and 2.23%, respectively. At the other end of the scale, cases of early-onset liver cancer dropped by around 2.88% year on year.
Increase in deaths
There were more than a million (1.06) cancer deaths among patients younger than 50 years in 2019, which is an increase of slightly less than 28% compared with the figures from 1990.
The top four early-onset cancers with the highest mortality and disability-adjusted life year rates among young adults in 2019 were early-onset breast; tracheal, bronchus and lung; stomach; and colorectal cancers. The mortality rates of early-onset kidney cancer and ovarian cancer showed the fastest increasing trends.
“These results contrast with a more traditionally held view of ‘typical’ cancers in adults aged under 50 years,” Ashleigh C. Hamilton, MD, an academic clinical lecturer, and Helen G. Coleman, PhD, a professor, both at Queen’s University Belfast’s Centre for Public Health in the United Kingdom, explained in an accompanying editorial. An important aspect of this study is that it tackled the issue of increasing cancer rates among young people on a global scale, they added. Here, the researchers made use of 2019 data from the Global Burden of Disease database for 29 types of cancer in 204 countries and regions.
Industrialized countries
The highest rates of early-onset cancer in 2019 were reported in North America, Australasia, and Western Europe. However, the burden of early-onset cancers in low- to middle-income countries is also of major public health concern. The highest death rates among patients younger than 50 years were in Oceania, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.
In low- or middle-income regions, early-onset cancer had a significantly higher impact on women than on men in terms of mortality and disease burden, the researchers reported.
On the basis of trends observed over the past 30 years, they estimate that the global incidence and deaths of early-onset cancer would increase by 31% and 21% in 2030, respectively, with 40-year-olds being the most affected.
Hypotheses and limitations
How can this increase in the incidence of cancer among patients younger than 50 years be explained? For the authors, genetic factors likely play a role. But dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium, and low in milk, etc.), alcohol consumption, and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers in patients under age 50 years. Physical inactivity, excess weight, and hyperglycemia were shown to be contributing factors.
The researchers recognized several limitations to their conclusions. First, the accuracy of Global Burden of Disease data was compromised by the quality of cancer registry data in different countries, which may have led to underreporting and underdiagnosis. Also, questions remain about how screening and early exposure to environmental factors can affect the observed trends.
For the authors of the editorial, “Full understanding of the reasons driving the observed trends remains elusive, although lifestyle factors are likely contributing, and novel areas of research such as antibiotic usage, the gut microbiome, outdoor air pollution, and early life exposures are being explored.”
They concluded, “Prevention and early detection measures are urgently required, along with identifying optimal treatment strategies for early-onset cancers, which should include a holistic approach addressing the unique supportive care needs of younger patients.”
The authors added, “It is worth exploring whether early screening and prevention programs for early-onset cancer should be expanded to include individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49, but further systematic studies and randomized trials are necessary to make a definitive determination.”
Trend in the United States
Between 2010 and 2019, although the incidence of cancer dropped in people over age 50 years in the United States, a study published in JAMA Network Open in August showed that the standardized incidence rate of early-onset cancer increased overall. More specifically, the rate increased in women but decreased in men.
In 2019, most early-onset cancer cases involved breast cancer. Between 2010 and 2019, gastrointestinal cancers saw the fastest rise. And among gastrointestinal cancers, those whose incidence rate increased the most rapidly were those affecting the appendix, the intrahepatic bile ducts, and the pancreas.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Recent data suggest that the incidence of early-onset cancer, defined as cancer diagnosed in people younger than 50 years, is on the rise in several countries. Two recent studies confirm this trend, including one published in early September in BMJ Oncology that presents worldwide data on the matter.
Early-onset cancer
Among them, early-onset breast cancer had the highest incidence (13.7) and mortality (3.5 per 100k) rates in the global population.
Tracheal (nasopharyngeal) and prostate cancer have increased the most rapidly since 1990, with annual percentage changes estimated at 2.28% and 2.23%, respectively. At the other end of the scale, cases of early-onset liver cancer dropped by around 2.88% year on year.
Increase in deaths
There were more than a million (1.06) cancer deaths among patients younger than 50 years in 2019, which is an increase of slightly less than 28% compared with the figures from 1990.
The top four early-onset cancers with the highest mortality and disability-adjusted life year rates among young adults in 2019 were early-onset breast; tracheal, bronchus and lung; stomach; and colorectal cancers. The mortality rates of early-onset kidney cancer and ovarian cancer showed the fastest increasing trends.
“These results contrast with a more traditionally held view of ‘typical’ cancers in adults aged under 50 years,” Ashleigh C. Hamilton, MD, an academic clinical lecturer, and Helen G. Coleman, PhD, a professor, both at Queen’s University Belfast’s Centre for Public Health in the United Kingdom, explained in an accompanying editorial. An important aspect of this study is that it tackled the issue of increasing cancer rates among young people on a global scale, they added. Here, the researchers made use of 2019 data from the Global Burden of Disease database for 29 types of cancer in 204 countries and regions.
Industrialized countries
The highest rates of early-onset cancer in 2019 were reported in North America, Australasia, and Western Europe. However, the burden of early-onset cancers in low- to middle-income countries is also of major public health concern. The highest death rates among patients younger than 50 years were in Oceania, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.
In low- or middle-income regions, early-onset cancer had a significantly higher impact on women than on men in terms of mortality and disease burden, the researchers reported.
On the basis of trends observed over the past 30 years, they estimate that the global incidence and deaths of early-onset cancer would increase by 31% and 21% in 2030, respectively, with 40-year-olds being the most affected.
Hypotheses and limitations
How can this increase in the incidence of cancer among patients younger than 50 years be explained? For the authors, genetic factors likely play a role. But dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium, and low in milk, etc.), alcohol consumption, and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers in patients under age 50 years. Physical inactivity, excess weight, and hyperglycemia were shown to be contributing factors.
The researchers recognized several limitations to their conclusions. First, the accuracy of Global Burden of Disease data was compromised by the quality of cancer registry data in different countries, which may have led to underreporting and underdiagnosis. Also, questions remain about how screening and early exposure to environmental factors can affect the observed trends.
For the authors of the editorial, “Full understanding of the reasons driving the observed trends remains elusive, although lifestyle factors are likely contributing, and novel areas of research such as antibiotic usage, the gut microbiome, outdoor air pollution, and early life exposures are being explored.”
They concluded, “Prevention and early detection measures are urgently required, along with identifying optimal treatment strategies for early-onset cancers, which should include a holistic approach addressing the unique supportive care needs of younger patients.”
The authors added, “It is worth exploring whether early screening and prevention programs for early-onset cancer should be expanded to include individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49, but further systematic studies and randomized trials are necessary to make a definitive determination.”
Trend in the United States
Between 2010 and 2019, although the incidence of cancer dropped in people over age 50 years in the United States, a study published in JAMA Network Open in August showed that the standardized incidence rate of early-onset cancer increased overall. More specifically, the rate increased in women but decreased in men.
In 2019, most early-onset cancer cases involved breast cancer. Between 2010 and 2019, gastrointestinal cancers saw the fastest rise. And among gastrointestinal cancers, those whose incidence rate increased the most rapidly were those affecting the appendix, the intrahepatic bile ducts, and the pancreas.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
from bmj oncology
Two landmark papers change treatment paradigm for advanced endometrial cancer
I wanted to very briefly highlight a truly extraordinary event in my professional experience as a clinical investigator for almost 40 years in the area of the gynecologic malignancies:
In my career, of course, I’ve treated endometrial cancer, but the paradigm, the algorithms, and the strategies we’ve used have, for the most part, simply followed what we’ve done for ovarian cancer. If platinums worked in ovarian cancer, they probably worked in endometrial cancer, and that was true. If paclitaxel worked and had activity in ovarian cancer, it probably would in endometrial cancer, and that was true. It took some time, but basically, we use the same frontline chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer as we’ve used in ovarian cancer, and on and on.
That world has changed, very much for the positive. Not only have pharmaceutical companies, academic investigators, and individual investigators in the community setting seen endometrial cancer as a major priority, but we have exciting new developments, and very specifically, of course, the immunotherapeutic agents known as checkpoint inhibitors.
One of these two papers was titled “Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Endometrial Cancer” and the second one was titled “Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.” Obviously, these were separate studies, but both used checkpoint inhibitor plus the chemotherapeutic agents carboplatin-paclitaxel, compared with chemotherapy alone as frontline therapy for advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer and demonstrated a statistically significant, and in my opinion, highly clinically meaningful improvement, in progression-free survival in favor of the regimen that included the checkpoint inhibitors.
Clearly, we will need longer follow-up to see both the overall magnitude of the effect of these therapies on overall survival and the duration of the effect – the shape of the curve. Do we cure many more people? Do we delay time to progression and death? That remains to be seen.
But the outcomes we have now are remarkably positive for patients and have absolutely changed the standard of care in the management of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer.
I should note that this includes both patients who have evidence of mismatch repair deficiency and those patients who do not have evidence of deficiency, which is a large patient population. These studies demonstrated the benefit to the entire population of patients.
However, on the basis of the data that we have – not only in endometrial cancer, but in other tumor types – the greatest impact was seen in patients with evidence of mismatch repair deficiency, where the immunotherapy agent has been shown to be most relevant; not exclusively, but most relevant.
These are very important papers. If you have an interest in endometrial cancer or immunotherapy, I would encourage you to read these papers. They change the paradigm of management for advanced endometrial cancer, and they clearly point out directions for future research in the management of this class of gynecologic cancers.
Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., and the president of Medicine & Science at City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.
This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I wanted to very briefly highlight a truly extraordinary event in my professional experience as a clinical investigator for almost 40 years in the area of the gynecologic malignancies:
In my career, of course, I’ve treated endometrial cancer, but the paradigm, the algorithms, and the strategies we’ve used have, for the most part, simply followed what we’ve done for ovarian cancer. If platinums worked in ovarian cancer, they probably worked in endometrial cancer, and that was true. If paclitaxel worked and had activity in ovarian cancer, it probably would in endometrial cancer, and that was true. It took some time, but basically, we use the same frontline chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer as we’ve used in ovarian cancer, and on and on.
That world has changed, very much for the positive. Not only have pharmaceutical companies, academic investigators, and individual investigators in the community setting seen endometrial cancer as a major priority, but we have exciting new developments, and very specifically, of course, the immunotherapeutic agents known as checkpoint inhibitors.
One of these two papers was titled “Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Endometrial Cancer” and the second one was titled “Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.” Obviously, these were separate studies, but both used checkpoint inhibitor plus the chemotherapeutic agents carboplatin-paclitaxel, compared with chemotherapy alone as frontline therapy for advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer and demonstrated a statistically significant, and in my opinion, highly clinically meaningful improvement, in progression-free survival in favor of the regimen that included the checkpoint inhibitors.
Clearly, we will need longer follow-up to see both the overall magnitude of the effect of these therapies on overall survival and the duration of the effect – the shape of the curve. Do we cure many more people? Do we delay time to progression and death? That remains to be seen.
But the outcomes we have now are remarkably positive for patients and have absolutely changed the standard of care in the management of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer.
I should note that this includes both patients who have evidence of mismatch repair deficiency and those patients who do not have evidence of deficiency, which is a large patient population. These studies demonstrated the benefit to the entire population of patients.
However, on the basis of the data that we have – not only in endometrial cancer, but in other tumor types – the greatest impact was seen in patients with evidence of mismatch repair deficiency, where the immunotherapy agent has been shown to be most relevant; not exclusively, but most relevant.
These are very important papers. If you have an interest in endometrial cancer or immunotherapy, I would encourage you to read these papers. They change the paradigm of management for advanced endometrial cancer, and they clearly point out directions for future research in the management of this class of gynecologic cancers.
Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., and the president of Medicine & Science at City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.
This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I wanted to very briefly highlight a truly extraordinary event in my professional experience as a clinical investigator for almost 40 years in the area of the gynecologic malignancies:
In my career, of course, I’ve treated endometrial cancer, but the paradigm, the algorithms, and the strategies we’ve used have, for the most part, simply followed what we’ve done for ovarian cancer. If platinums worked in ovarian cancer, they probably worked in endometrial cancer, and that was true. If paclitaxel worked and had activity in ovarian cancer, it probably would in endometrial cancer, and that was true. It took some time, but basically, we use the same frontline chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer as we’ve used in ovarian cancer, and on and on.
That world has changed, very much for the positive. Not only have pharmaceutical companies, academic investigators, and individual investigators in the community setting seen endometrial cancer as a major priority, but we have exciting new developments, and very specifically, of course, the immunotherapeutic agents known as checkpoint inhibitors.
One of these two papers was titled “Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Endometrial Cancer” and the second one was titled “Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.” Obviously, these were separate studies, but both used checkpoint inhibitor plus the chemotherapeutic agents carboplatin-paclitaxel, compared with chemotherapy alone as frontline therapy for advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer and demonstrated a statistically significant, and in my opinion, highly clinically meaningful improvement, in progression-free survival in favor of the regimen that included the checkpoint inhibitors.
Clearly, we will need longer follow-up to see both the overall magnitude of the effect of these therapies on overall survival and the duration of the effect – the shape of the curve. Do we cure many more people? Do we delay time to progression and death? That remains to be seen.
But the outcomes we have now are remarkably positive for patients and have absolutely changed the standard of care in the management of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer.
I should note that this includes both patients who have evidence of mismatch repair deficiency and those patients who do not have evidence of deficiency, which is a large patient population. These studies demonstrated the benefit to the entire population of patients.
However, on the basis of the data that we have – not only in endometrial cancer, but in other tumor types – the greatest impact was seen in patients with evidence of mismatch repair deficiency, where the immunotherapy agent has been shown to be most relevant; not exclusively, but most relevant.
These are very important papers. If you have an interest in endometrial cancer or immunotherapy, I would encourage you to read these papers. They change the paradigm of management for advanced endometrial cancer, and they clearly point out directions for future research in the management of this class of gynecologic cancers.
Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., and the president of Medicine & Science at City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.
This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Surgery approach may improve survival in advanced ovarian cancer
TOPLINE:
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, compared with interval cytoreductive surgery alone, in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, new research shows.
METHODOLOGY:
- Several randomized controlled trials have shown survival benefits with HIPEC followed by interval cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. Despite the data, the use of HIPEC in clinical practice remains limited.
- Potential downsides of HIPEC include longer operative time and treatment-related complications.
- This prospective, multicenter, comparative effectiveness study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC versus the surgery alone.
- The study, conducted at seven Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group institutions, included 196 patients (mean age, 58 years) with stage III or IV ovarian cancer who had received at least three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (n = 109) or without HIPEC (n = 87).
- The researchers reported progression-free survival as well as overall survival and treatment-related toxic effects.
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 28.2 months, 128 patients (65%) had a recurrence and 30 died (15.3%) – 8.3% in the HIPEC group and 24.1% in the non-HIPEC group.
- Compared with no HIPEC, interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC led to a significant improvement in median PFS (22.9 months vs. 14.2 months; P = .005) and median overall survival (not reached vs. 53 months; P = .002).
- The frequency of grade 3 or 4 postoperative complications was similar in both groups: 2.8% with HIPEC versus 3.4% without HIPEC.
- Among patients with recurrence, the frequency of peritoneal recurrence was significantly lower among those who received HIPEC (32.8% vs. 64.1% without HIPEC; P = .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“We observed a significantly superior survival benefit associated with [interval cytoreductive surgery] with HIPEC, without higher rates of postoperative complications,” the authors concluded, adding that “the survival benefit remained consistent, irrespective of maintenance therapy.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jung-Yun Lee, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, was published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The patients were not randomly assigned and the decision to give HIPEC was at the clinician’s discretion, introducing the possibility of selection and treatment bias. The different types of drugs used in HIPEC could result in bias in data interpretation.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The study had no specific funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, compared with interval cytoreductive surgery alone, in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, new research shows.
METHODOLOGY:
- Several randomized controlled trials have shown survival benefits with HIPEC followed by interval cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. Despite the data, the use of HIPEC in clinical practice remains limited.
- Potential downsides of HIPEC include longer operative time and treatment-related complications.
- This prospective, multicenter, comparative effectiveness study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC versus the surgery alone.
- The study, conducted at seven Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group institutions, included 196 patients (mean age, 58 years) with stage III or IV ovarian cancer who had received at least three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (n = 109) or without HIPEC (n = 87).
- The researchers reported progression-free survival as well as overall survival and treatment-related toxic effects.
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 28.2 months, 128 patients (65%) had a recurrence and 30 died (15.3%) – 8.3% in the HIPEC group and 24.1% in the non-HIPEC group.
- Compared with no HIPEC, interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC led to a significant improvement in median PFS (22.9 months vs. 14.2 months; P = .005) and median overall survival (not reached vs. 53 months; P = .002).
- The frequency of grade 3 or 4 postoperative complications was similar in both groups: 2.8% with HIPEC versus 3.4% without HIPEC.
- Among patients with recurrence, the frequency of peritoneal recurrence was significantly lower among those who received HIPEC (32.8% vs. 64.1% without HIPEC; P = .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“We observed a significantly superior survival benefit associated with [interval cytoreductive surgery] with HIPEC, without higher rates of postoperative complications,” the authors concluded, adding that “the survival benefit remained consistent, irrespective of maintenance therapy.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jung-Yun Lee, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, was published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The patients were not randomly assigned and the decision to give HIPEC was at the clinician’s discretion, introducing the possibility of selection and treatment bias. The different types of drugs used in HIPEC could result in bias in data interpretation.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The study had no specific funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, compared with interval cytoreductive surgery alone, in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, new research shows.
METHODOLOGY:
- Several randomized controlled trials have shown survival benefits with HIPEC followed by interval cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. Despite the data, the use of HIPEC in clinical practice remains limited.
- Potential downsides of HIPEC include longer operative time and treatment-related complications.
- This prospective, multicenter, comparative effectiveness study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC versus the surgery alone.
- The study, conducted at seven Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group institutions, included 196 patients (mean age, 58 years) with stage III or IV ovarian cancer who had received at least three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (n = 109) or without HIPEC (n = 87).
- The researchers reported progression-free survival as well as overall survival and treatment-related toxic effects.
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 28.2 months, 128 patients (65%) had a recurrence and 30 died (15.3%) – 8.3% in the HIPEC group and 24.1% in the non-HIPEC group.
- Compared with no HIPEC, interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC led to a significant improvement in median PFS (22.9 months vs. 14.2 months; P = .005) and median overall survival (not reached vs. 53 months; P = .002).
- The frequency of grade 3 or 4 postoperative complications was similar in both groups: 2.8% with HIPEC versus 3.4% without HIPEC.
- Among patients with recurrence, the frequency of peritoneal recurrence was significantly lower among those who received HIPEC (32.8% vs. 64.1% without HIPEC; P = .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“We observed a significantly superior survival benefit associated with [interval cytoreductive surgery] with HIPEC, without higher rates of postoperative complications,” the authors concluded, adding that “the survival benefit remained consistent, irrespective of maintenance therapy.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jung-Yun Lee, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, was published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The patients were not randomly assigned and the decision to give HIPEC was at the clinician’s discretion, introducing the possibility of selection and treatment bias. The different types of drugs used in HIPEC could result in bias in data interpretation.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The study had no specific funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA SURGERY
Delaying palliative chemo may improve QoL without affecting survival for asymptomatic patients
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Traditionally, chemotherapy is started immediately when advanced cancer is diagnosed, but delaying chemotherapy until symptoms start could improve QoL.
- To find out, investigators performed a meta-analysis of five studies that explored the timing of palliative chemotherapy. The analysis included three randomized trials in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), one in advanced ovarian cancer, and a review of patients with stage IV gastric cancer.
- Of the 919 patients, treatment was delayed for 467 patients (50.8%) until symptoms started in the colorectal trials. It was delayed until tumor recurrence in the ovarian cancer trial, and it was delayed until a month or more had passed in the gastric cancer study, regardless of symptoms.
- QoL was assessed largely by the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Median follow-up ranged from 11 to 60 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- The researchers found no significant differences in overall survival between patients for whom chemotherapy was delayed and those for whom chemotherapy began immediately (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.22; P = .52).
- Median overall survival was 11.9 to 25.7 months with immediate treatment, vs. 9 to 27.1 months with delayed treatment.
- In the three studies that evaluated QoL, the findings suggested that QoL was largely better among patients whose treatment was delayed. In the CRC studies that assessed QoL, for instance, global health status in the delayed treatment group was higher than that in the immediate treatment group at almost all time points, but not significantly so.
- Rates of grade 3/4 toxicities, evaluated in two studies, did not differ significantly between the groups.
IN PRACTICE:
There is limited evidence on the optimal timing for starting chemotherapy for asymptomatic patients with advanced cancer. In these studies, delaying chemotherapy until symptoms occurred did not result in worse overall survival compared with immediate treatment and may have resulted in better QoL, the researchers concluded. They noted that for asymptomatic patients, delaying the start of systemic therapy should be discussed with the patient.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Simone Augustinus of the University of Amsterdam, was published online Aug. 17 in The Oncologist.
LIMITATIONS:
- Only three types of cancer were included in the analysis, and the findings may not be generalizable to other types of cancer.
- Some of the studies were older and employed out-of-date treatment regimens.
- QoL was only evaluated in three of five studies and could not be evaluated overall in the meta-analysis because of the different time points measured in each trial.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no external funding. Two investigators have advisory, speaker, and/or research ties to Celgene, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Traditionally, chemotherapy is started immediately when advanced cancer is diagnosed, but delaying chemotherapy until symptoms start could improve QoL.
- To find out, investigators performed a meta-analysis of five studies that explored the timing of palliative chemotherapy. The analysis included three randomized trials in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), one in advanced ovarian cancer, and a review of patients with stage IV gastric cancer.
- Of the 919 patients, treatment was delayed for 467 patients (50.8%) until symptoms started in the colorectal trials. It was delayed until tumor recurrence in the ovarian cancer trial, and it was delayed until a month or more had passed in the gastric cancer study, regardless of symptoms.
- QoL was assessed largely by the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Median follow-up ranged from 11 to 60 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- The researchers found no significant differences in overall survival between patients for whom chemotherapy was delayed and those for whom chemotherapy began immediately (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.22; P = .52).
- Median overall survival was 11.9 to 25.7 months with immediate treatment, vs. 9 to 27.1 months with delayed treatment.
- In the three studies that evaluated QoL, the findings suggested that QoL was largely better among patients whose treatment was delayed. In the CRC studies that assessed QoL, for instance, global health status in the delayed treatment group was higher than that in the immediate treatment group at almost all time points, but not significantly so.
- Rates of grade 3/4 toxicities, evaluated in two studies, did not differ significantly between the groups.
IN PRACTICE:
There is limited evidence on the optimal timing for starting chemotherapy for asymptomatic patients with advanced cancer. In these studies, delaying chemotherapy until symptoms occurred did not result in worse overall survival compared with immediate treatment and may have resulted in better QoL, the researchers concluded. They noted that for asymptomatic patients, delaying the start of systemic therapy should be discussed with the patient.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Simone Augustinus of the University of Amsterdam, was published online Aug. 17 in The Oncologist.
LIMITATIONS:
- Only three types of cancer were included in the analysis, and the findings may not be generalizable to other types of cancer.
- Some of the studies were older and employed out-of-date treatment regimens.
- QoL was only evaluated in three of five studies and could not be evaluated overall in the meta-analysis because of the different time points measured in each trial.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no external funding. Two investigators have advisory, speaker, and/or research ties to Celgene, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Traditionally, chemotherapy is started immediately when advanced cancer is diagnosed, but delaying chemotherapy until symptoms start could improve QoL.
- To find out, investigators performed a meta-analysis of five studies that explored the timing of palliative chemotherapy. The analysis included three randomized trials in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), one in advanced ovarian cancer, and a review of patients with stage IV gastric cancer.
- Of the 919 patients, treatment was delayed for 467 patients (50.8%) until symptoms started in the colorectal trials. It was delayed until tumor recurrence in the ovarian cancer trial, and it was delayed until a month or more had passed in the gastric cancer study, regardless of symptoms.
- QoL was assessed largely by the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Median follow-up ranged from 11 to 60 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- The researchers found no significant differences in overall survival between patients for whom chemotherapy was delayed and those for whom chemotherapy began immediately (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.22; P = .52).
- Median overall survival was 11.9 to 25.7 months with immediate treatment, vs. 9 to 27.1 months with delayed treatment.
- In the three studies that evaluated QoL, the findings suggested that QoL was largely better among patients whose treatment was delayed. In the CRC studies that assessed QoL, for instance, global health status in the delayed treatment group was higher than that in the immediate treatment group at almost all time points, but not significantly so.
- Rates of grade 3/4 toxicities, evaluated in two studies, did not differ significantly between the groups.
IN PRACTICE:
There is limited evidence on the optimal timing for starting chemotherapy for asymptomatic patients with advanced cancer. In these studies, delaying chemotherapy until symptoms occurred did not result in worse overall survival compared with immediate treatment and may have resulted in better QoL, the researchers concluded. They noted that for asymptomatic patients, delaying the start of systemic therapy should be discussed with the patient.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Simone Augustinus of the University of Amsterdam, was published online Aug. 17 in The Oncologist.
LIMITATIONS:
- Only three types of cancer were included in the analysis, and the findings may not be generalizable to other types of cancer.
- Some of the studies were older and employed out-of-date treatment regimens.
- QoL was only evaluated in three of five studies and could not be evaluated overall in the meta-analysis because of the different time points measured in each trial.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no external funding. Two investigators have advisory, speaker, and/or research ties to Celgene, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE ONCOLOGIST
Black women weigh emerging risks of ‘creamy crack’ hair straighteners
Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”
After emergency surgery to remove the mass, along with her ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and appendix, Ms. Hughes said, she saw an Instagram post in which a woman with uterine cancer linked her condition to chemical hair straighteners.
“I almost fell over,” she said from her home in Smyrna, Ga.
When Ms. Hughes was about 4, her mother began applying a chemical straightener, or relaxer, to her hair every 6-8 weeks. “It burned, and it smelled awful,” Ms. Hughes recalled. “But it was just part of our routine to ‘deal with my hair.’ ”
The routine continued until she went to college and met other Black women who wore their hair naturally. Soon, Ms. Hughes quit relaxers.
Social and economic pressures have long compelled Black girls and women to straighten their hair to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But chemical straighteners are stinky and costly and sometimes cause painful scalp burns. Mounting evidence now shows they could be a health hazard.
Relaxers can contain carcinogens, such as formaldehyde-releasing agents, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, according to National Institutes of Health studies. The compounds can mimic the body’s hormones and have been linked to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, studies show.
African American women’s often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill disproportionately more Black than White women, say researchers and cancer doctors.
“What’s in these products is harmful,” said Tamarra James-Todd, PhD, an epidemiology professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who has studied straightening products for the past 20 years.
She believes manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians should warn consumers that relaxers might cause cancer and other health problems.
But regulators have been slow to act, physicians have been reluctant to take up the cause, and racism continues to dictate fashion standards that make it tough for women to quit relaxers, products so addictive they’re known as “creamy crack.”
Michelle Obama straightened her hair when Barack Obama served as president because she believed Americans were “not ready” to see her in braids, the former first lady said after leaving the White House. The U.S. military still prohibited popular Black hairstyles such as dreadlocks and twists while the nation’s first Black president was in office.
California in 2019 became the first of nearly two dozen states to ban race-based hair discrimination. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation, known as the CROWN Act, for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. But the bill failed in the Senate.
The need for legislation underscores the challenges Black girls and women face at school and in the workplace.
“You have to pick your struggles,” said Atlanta-based surgical oncologist Ryland J. Gore, MD. She informs her breast cancer patients about the increased cancer risk from relaxers. Despite her knowledge, however, Dr. Gore continues to use chemical straighteners on her own hair, as she has since she was about 7 years old.
“Your hair tells a story,” she said.
In conversations with patients, Dr. Gore sometimes talks about how African American women once wove messages into their braids about the route to take on the Underground Railroad as they sought freedom from slavery.
“It’s just a deep discussion,” one that touches on culture, history, and research into current hairstyling practices, she said. “The data is out there. So patients should be warned, and then they can make a decision.”
The first hint of a connection between hair products and health issues surfaced in the 1990s. Doctors began seeing signs of sexual maturation in Black babies and young girls who developed breasts and pubic hair after using shampoo containing estrogen or placental extract. When the girls stopped using the shampoo, the hair and breast development receded, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics in 1998.
Since then, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers have linked chemicals in hair products to a variety of health issues more prevalent among Black women – from early puberty to preterm birth, obesity, and diabetes.
In recent years, researchers have focused on a possible connection between ingredients in chemical relaxers and hormone-related cancers, like the one Ms. Hughes developed, which tend to be more aggressive and deadly in Black women.
A 2017 study found White women who used chemical relaxers were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who did not use them. Because the vast majority of the Black study participants used relaxers, researchers could not effectively test the association in Black women, said lead author Adana Llanos, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, New York.
Researchers did test it in 2020.
The so-called Sister Study, a landmark National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences investigation into the causes of breast cancer and related diseases, followed 50,000 U.S. women whose sisters had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were cancer-free when they enrolled. Regardless of race, women who reported using relaxers in the prior year were 18% more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who used relaxers at least every 5-8 weeks had a 31% higher breast cancer risk.
Nearly 75% of the Black sisters used relaxers in the prior year, compared with 3% of the non-Hispanic White sisters. Three-quarters of Black women self-reported using the straighteners as adolescents, and frequent use of chemical straighteners during adolescence raised the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, a 2021 NIH-funded study in the International Journal of Cancer found.
Another 2021 analysis of the Sister Study data showed sisters who self-reported that they frequently used relaxers or pressing products doubled their ovarian cancer risk. In 2022, another study found frequent use more than doubled uterine cancer risk.
After researchers discovered the link with uterine cancer, some called for policy changes and other measures to reduce exposure to chemical relaxers.
“It is time to intervene,” Dr. Llanos and her colleagues wrote in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial accompanying the uterine cancer analysis. While acknowledging the need for more research, they issued a “call for action.”
No one can say that using permanent hair straighteners will give you cancer, Dr. Llanos said in an interview. “That’s not how cancer works,” she said, noting that some smokers never develop lung cancer, despite tobacco use being a known risk factor.
The body of research linking hair straighteners and cancer is more limited, said Dr. Llanos, who quit using chemical relaxers 15 years ago. But, she asked rhetorically, “Do we need to do the research for 50 more years to know that chemical relaxers are harmful?”
Charlotte R. Gamble, MD, a gynecological oncologist whose Washington, D.C., practice includes Black women with uterine and ovarian cancer, said she and her colleagues see the uterine cancer study findings as worthy of further exploration – but not yet worthy of discussion with patients.
“The jury’s out for me personally,” she said. “There’s so much more data that’s needed.”
Meanwhile, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers believe they have built a solid body of evidence.
“There are enough things we do know to begin taking action, developing interventions, providing useful information to clinicians and patients and the general public,” said Traci N. Bethea, PhD, assistant professor in the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research at Georgetown University.
Responsibility for regulating personal-care products, including chemical hair straighteners and hair dyes – which also have been linked to hormone-related cancers – lies with the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA does not subject personal-care products to the same approval process it uses for food and drugs. The FDA restricts only 11 categories of chemicals used in cosmetics, while concerns about health effects have prompted the European Union to restrict the use of at least 2,400 substances.
In March, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked the FDA to investigate the potential health threat posed by chemical relaxers. An FDA representative said the agency would look into it.
Natural hairstyles are enjoying a resurgence among Black girls and women, but many continue to rely on the creamy crack, said Dede Teteh, DrPH, assistant professor of public health at Chapman University, Irvine, Calif.
She had her first straightening perm at 8 and has struggled to withdraw from relaxers as an adult, said Dr. Teteh, who now wears locs. Not long ago, she considered chemically straightening her hair for an academic job interview because she didn’t want her hair to “be a hindrance” when she appeared before White professors.
Dr. Teteh led “The Cost of Beauty,” a hair-health research project published in 2017. She and her team interviewed 91 Black women in Southern California. Some became “combative” at the idea of quitting relaxers and claimed “everything can cause cancer.”
Their reactions speak to the challenges Black women face in America, Dr. Teteh said.
“It’s not that people do not want to hear the information related to their health,” she said. “But they want people to share the information in a way that it’s really empathetic to the plight of being Black here in the United States.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”
After emergency surgery to remove the mass, along with her ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and appendix, Ms. Hughes said, she saw an Instagram post in which a woman with uterine cancer linked her condition to chemical hair straighteners.
“I almost fell over,” she said from her home in Smyrna, Ga.
When Ms. Hughes was about 4, her mother began applying a chemical straightener, or relaxer, to her hair every 6-8 weeks. “It burned, and it smelled awful,” Ms. Hughes recalled. “But it was just part of our routine to ‘deal with my hair.’ ”
The routine continued until she went to college and met other Black women who wore their hair naturally. Soon, Ms. Hughes quit relaxers.
Social and economic pressures have long compelled Black girls and women to straighten their hair to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But chemical straighteners are stinky and costly and sometimes cause painful scalp burns. Mounting evidence now shows they could be a health hazard.
Relaxers can contain carcinogens, such as formaldehyde-releasing agents, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, according to National Institutes of Health studies. The compounds can mimic the body’s hormones and have been linked to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, studies show.
African American women’s often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill disproportionately more Black than White women, say researchers and cancer doctors.
“What’s in these products is harmful,” said Tamarra James-Todd, PhD, an epidemiology professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who has studied straightening products for the past 20 years.
She believes manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians should warn consumers that relaxers might cause cancer and other health problems.
But regulators have been slow to act, physicians have been reluctant to take up the cause, and racism continues to dictate fashion standards that make it tough for women to quit relaxers, products so addictive they’re known as “creamy crack.”
Michelle Obama straightened her hair when Barack Obama served as president because she believed Americans were “not ready” to see her in braids, the former first lady said after leaving the White House. The U.S. military still prohibited popular Black hairstyles such as dreadlocks and twists while the nation’s first Black president was in office.
California in 2019 became the first of nearly two dozen states to ban race-based hair discrimination. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation, known as the CROWN Act, for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. But the bill failed in the Senate.
The need for legislation underscores the challenges Black girls and women face at school and in the workplace.
“You have to pick your struggles,” said Atlanta-based surgical oncologist Ryland J. Gore, MD. She informs her breast cancer patients about the increased cancer risk from relaxers. Despite her knowledge, however, Dr. Gore continues to use chemical straighteners on her own hair, as she has since she was about 7 years old.
“Your hair tells a story,” she said.
In conversations with patients, Dr. Gore sometimes talks about how African American women once wove messages into their braids about the route to take on the Underground Railroad as they sought freedom from slavery.
“It’s just a deep discussion,” one that touches on culture, history, and research into current hairstyling practices, she said. “The data is out there. So patients should be warned, and then they can make a decision.”
The first hint of a connection between hair products and health issues surfaced in the 1990s. Doctors began seeing signs of sexual maturation in Black babies and young girls who developed breasts and pubic hair after using shampoo containing estrogen or placental extract. When the girls stopped using the shampoo, the hair and breast development receded, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics in 1998.
Since then, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers have linked chemicals in hair products to a variety of health issues more prevalent among Black women – from early puberty to preterm birth, obesity, and diabetes.
In recent years, researchers have focused on a possible connection between ingredients in chemical relaxers and hormone-related cancers, like the one Ms. Hughes developed, which tend to be more aggressive and deadly in Black women.
A 2017 study found White women who used chemical relaxers were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who did not use them. Because the vast majority of the Black study participants used relaxers, researchers could not effectively test the association in Black women, said lead author Adana Llanos, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, New York.
Researchers did test it in 2020.
The so-called Sister Study, a landmark National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences investigation into the causes of breast cancer and related diseases, followed 50,000 U.S. women whose sisters had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were cancer-free when they enrolled. Regardless of race, women who reported using relaxers in the prior year were 18% more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who used relaxers at least every 5-8 weeks had a 31% higher breast cancer risk.
Nearly 75% of the Black sisters used relaxers in the prior year, compared with 3% of the non-Hispanic White sisters. Three-quarters of Black women self-reported using the straighteners as adolescents, and frequent use of chemical straighteners during adolescence raised the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, a 2021 NIH-funded study in the International Journal of Cancer found.
Another 2021 analysis of the Sister Study data showed sisters who self-reported that they frequently used relaxers or pressing products doubled their ovarian cancer risk. In 2022, another study found frequent use more than doubled uterine cancer risk.
After researchers discovered the link with uterine cancer, some called for policy changes and other measures to reduce exposure to chemical relaxers.
“It is time to intervene,” Dr. Llanos and her colleagues wrote in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial accompanying the uterine cancer analysis. While acknowledging the need for more research, they issued a “call for action.”
No one can say that using permanent hair straighteners will give you cancer, Dr. Llanos said in an interview. “That’s not how cancer works,” she said, noting that some smokers never develop lung cancer, despite tobacco use being a known risk factor.
The body of research linking hair straighteners and cancer is more limited, said Dr. Llanos, who quit using chemical relaxers 15 years ago. But, she asked rhetorically, “Do we need to do the research for 50 more years to know that chemical relaxers are harmful?”
Charlotte R. Gamble, MD, a gynecological oncologist whose Washington, D.C., practice includes Black women with uterine and ovarian cancer, said she and her colleagues see the uterine cancer study findings as worthy of further exploration – but not yet worthy of discussion with patients.
“The jury’s out for me personally,” she said. “There’s so much more data that’s needed.”
Meanwhile, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers believe they have built a solid body of evidence.
“There are enough things we do know to begin taking action, developing interventions, providing useful information to clinicians and patients and the general public,” said Traci N. Bethea, PhD, assistant professor in the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research at Georgetown University.
Responsibility for regulating personal-care products, including chemical hair straighteners and hair dyes – which also have been linked to hormone-related cancers – lies with the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA does not subject personal-care products to the same approval process it uses for food and drugs. The FDA restricts only 11 categories of chemicals used in cosmetics, while concerns about health effects have prompted the European Union to restrict the use of at least 2,400 substances.
In March, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked the FDA to investigate the potential health threat posed by chemical relaxers. An FDA representative said the agency would look into it.
Natural hairstyles are enjoying a resurgence among Black girls and women, but many continue to rely on the creamy crack, said Dede Teteh, DrPH, assistant professor of public health at Chapman University, Irvine, Calif.
She had her first straightening perm at 8 and has struggled to withdraw from relaxers as an adult, said Dr. Teteh, who now wears locs. Not long ago, she considered chemically straightening her hair for an academic job interview because she didn’t want her hair to “be a hindrance” when she appeared before White professors.
Dr. Teteh led “The Cost of Beauty,” a hair-health research project published in 2017. She and her team interviewed 91 Black women in Southern California. Some became “combative” at the idea of quitting relaxers and claimed “everything can cause cancer.”
Their reactions speak to the challenges Black women face in America, Dr. Teteh said.
“It’s not that people do not want to hear the information related to their health,” she said. “But they want people to share the information in a way that it’s really empathetic to the plight of being Black here in the United States.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”
After emergency surgery to remove the mass, along with her ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and appendix, Ms. Hughes said, she saw an Instagram post in which a woman with uterine cancer linked her condition to chemical hair straighteners.
“I almost fell over,” she said from her home in Smyrna, Ga.
When Ms. Hughes was about 4, her mother began applying a chemical straightener, or relaxer, to her hair every 6-8 weeks. “It burned, and it smelled awful,” Ms. Hughes recalled. “But it was just part of our routine to ‘deal with my hair.’ ”
The routine continued until she went to college and met other Black women who wore their hair naturally. Soon, Ms. Hughes quit relaxers.
Social and economic pressures have long compelled Black girls and women to straighten their hair to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But chemical straighteners are stinky and costly and sometimes cause painful scalp burns. Mounting evidence now shows they could be a health hazard.
Relaxers can contain carcinogens, such as formaldehyde-releasing agents, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, according to National Institutes of Health studies. The compounds can mimic the body’s hormones and have been linked to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, studies show.
African American women’s often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill disproportionately more Black than White women, say researchers and cancer doctors.
“What’s in these products is harmful,” said Tamarra James-Todd, PhD, an epidemiology professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who has studied straightening products for the past 20 years.
She believes manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians should warn consumers that relaxers might cause cancer and other health problems.
But regulators have been slow to act, physicians have been reluctant to take up the cause, and racism continues to dictate fashion standards that make it tough for women to quit relaxers, products so addictive they’re known as “creamy crack.”
Michelle Obama straightened her hair when Barack Obama served as president because she believed Americans were “not ready” to see her in braids, the former first lady said after leaving the White House. The U.S. military still prohibited popular Black hairstyles such as dreadlocks and twists while the nation’s first Black president was in office.
California in 2019 became the first of nearly two dozen states to ban race-based hair discrimination. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation, known as the CROWN Act, for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. But the bill failed in the Senate.
The need for legislation underscores the challenges Black girls and women face at school and in the workplace.
“You have to pick your struggles,” said Atlanta-based surgical oncologist Ryland J. Gore, MD. She informs her breast cancer patients about the increased cancer risk from relaxers. Despite her knowledge, however, Dr. Gore continues to use chemical straighteners on her own hair, as she has since she was about 7 years old.
“Your hair tells a story,” she said.
In conversations with patients, Dr. Gore sometimes talks about how African American women once wove messages into their braids about the route to take on the Underground Railroad as they sought freedom from slavery.
“It’s just a deep discussion,” one that touches on culture, history, and research into current hairstyling practices, she said. “The data is out there. So patients should be warned, and then they can make a decision.”
The first hint of a connection between hair products and health issues surfaced in the 1990s. Doctors began seeing signs of sexual maturation in Black babies and young girls who developed breasts and pubic hair after using shampoo containing estrogen or placental extract. When the girls stopped using the shampoo, the hair and breast development receded, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics in 1998.
Since then, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers have linked chemicals in hair products to a variety of health issues more prevalent among Black women – from early puberty to preterm birth, obesity, and diabetes.
In recent years, researchers have focused on a possible connection between ingredients in chemical relaxers and hormone-related cancers, like the one Ms. Hughes developed, which tend to be more aggressive and deadly in Black women.
A 2017 study found White women who used chemical relaxers were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who did not use them. Because the vast majority of the Black study participants used relaxers, researchers could not effectively test the association in Black women, said lead author Adana Llanos, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, New York.
Researchers did test it in 2020.
The so-called Sister Study, a landmark National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences investigation into the causes of breast cancer and related diseases, followed 50,000 U.S. women whose sisters had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were cancer-free when they enrolled. Regardless of race, women who reported using relaxers in the prior year were 18% more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who used relaxers at least every 5-8 weeks had a 31% higher breast cancer risk.
Nearly 75% of the Black sisters used relaxers in the prior year, compared with 3% of the non-Hispanic White sisters. Three-quarters of Black women self-reported using the straighteners as adolescents, and frequent use of chemical straighteners during adolescence raised the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, a 2021 NIH-funded study in the International Journal of Cancer found.
Another 2021 analysis of the Sister Study data showed sisters who self-reported that they frequently used relaxers or pressing products doubled their ovarian cancer risk. In 2022, another study found frequent use more than doubled uterine cancer risk.
After researchers discovered the link with uterine cancer, some called for policy changes and other measures to reduce exposure to chemical relaxers.
“It is time to intervene,” Dr. Llanos and her colleagues wrote in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial accompanying the uterine cancer analysis. While acknowledging the need for more research, they issued a “call for action.”
No one can say that using permanent hair straighteners will give you cancer, Dr. Llanos said in an interview. “That’s not how cancer works,” she said, noting that some smokers never develop lung cancer, despite tobacco use being a known risk factor.
The body of research linking hair straighteners and cancer is more limited, said Dr. Llanos, who quit using chemical relaxers 15 years ago. But, she asked rhetorically, “Do we need to do the research for 50 more years to know that chemical relaxers are harmful?”
Charlotte R. Gamble, MD, a gynecological oncologist whose Washington, D.C., practice includes Black women with uterine and ovarian cancer, said she and her colleagues see the uterine cancer study findings as worthy of further exploration – but not yet worthy of discussion with patients.
“The jury’s out for me personally,” she said. “There’s so much more data that’s needed.”
Meanwhile, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers believe they have built a solid body of evidence.
“There are enough things we do know to begin taking action, developing interventions, providing useful information to clinicians and patients and the general public,” said Traci N. Bethea, PhD, assistant professor in the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research at Georgetown University.
Responsibility for regulating personal-care products, including chemical hair straighteners and hair dyes – which also have been linked to hormone-related cancers – lies with the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA does not subject personal-care products to the same approval process it uses for food and drugs. The FDA restricts only 11 categories of chemicals used in cosmetics, while concerns about health effects have prompted the European Union to restrict the use of at least 2,400 substances.
In March, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked the FDA to investigate the potential health threat posed by chemical relaxers. An FDA representative said the agency would look into it.
Natural hairstyles are enjoying a resurgence among Black girls and women, but many continue to rely on the creamy crack, said Dede Teteh, DrPH, assistant professor of public health at Chapman University, Irvine, Calif.
She had her first straightening perm at 8 and has struggled to withdraw from relaxers as an adult, said Dr. Teteh, who now wears locs. Not long ago, she considered chemically straightening her hair for an academic job interview because she didn’t want her hair to “be a hindrance” when she appeared before White professors.
Dr. Teteh led “The Cost of Beauty,” a hair-health research project published in 2017. She and her team interviewed 91 Black women in Southern California. Some became “combative” at the idea of quitting relaxers and claimed “everything can cause cancer.”
Their reactions speak to the challenges Black women face in America, Dr. Teteh said.
“It’s not that people do not want to hear the information related to their health,” she said. “But they want people to share the information in a way that it’s really empathetic to the plight of being Black here in the United States.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Cancer diagnoses, care access rise after Medicaid expansion
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- To assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer diagnosis, investigators compared the volume of patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Ohio, which expanded its Medicaid coverage in 2014, with that of Georgia, which did not.
- State cancer registries were queried from 2010 to 2017 to identify adults younger than 64 years with incident female breast cancer, cervical cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC).
TAKEAWAY:
- In Ohio, researchers found a substantial increase in diagnoses for all three cancers among Medicaid patients after expansion. The increase ranged from 42% for breast cancer to 77% for CRC.
- In Georgia, fewer Medicaid patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in the postexpansion period. There were also smaller increases in the number of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer (6%) and CRC (13%), compared with the postexpansion increases seen in Ohio.
- The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer fell 7% among Medicaid patients in Ohio after expansion.
- The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage CRC fell 6% among Medicaid patients in George and Ohio. The Georgia results are potentially attributable to increases in state and local screening programs, especially in rural areas.
IN PRACTICE:
“These starkly different patterns in changes in the number of diagnosed [breast cancer], [cervical cancer], and CRC cases among patients on Medicaid in Ohio versus Georgia in the postexpansion period suggest that expanding insurance coverage might have effectively improved access to care,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Kirsten Eom, PhD, of the MetroHealth Population Health Research Institute, Cleveland, was published online in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
- Medicaid status was determined at diagnosis; past studies have associated being enrolled in Medicaid at the time of cancer diagnosis, rather than before, with late‐stage disease.
- The team could not assess the effectiveness of state and local cancer screening programs in preventing late-stage cancer.
DISCLOSURES:
- The study was funded by the Ohio Department of Health and the Georgia Department of Public Health.
- One researcher reported a grant from Celgene.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- To assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer diagnosis, investigators compared the volume of patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Ohio, which expanded its Medicaid coverage in 2014, with that of Georgia, which did not.
- State cancer registries were queried from 2010 to 2017 to identify adults younger than 64 years with incident female breast cancer, cervical cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC).
TAKEAWAY:
- In Ohio, researchers found a substantial increase in diagnoses for all three cancers among Medicaid patients after expansion. The increase ranged from 42% for breast cancer to 77% for CRC.
- In Georgia, fewer Medicaid patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in the postexpansion period. There were also smaller increases in the number of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer (6%) and CRC (13%), compared with the postexpansion increases seen in Ohio.
- The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer fell 7% among Medicaid patients in Ohio after expansion.
- The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage CRC fell 6% among Medicaid patients in George and Ohio. The Georgia results are potentially attributable to increases in state and local screening programs, especially in rural areas.
IN PRACTICE:
“These starkly different patterns in changes in the number of diagnosed [breast cancer], [cervical cancer], and CRC cases among patients on Medicaid in Ohio versus Georgia in the postexpansion period suggest that expanding insurance coverage might have effectively improved access to care,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Kirsten Eom, PhD, of the MetroHealth Population Health Research Institute, Cleveland, was published online in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
- Medicaid status was determined at diagnosis; past studies have associated being enrolled in Medicaid at the time of cancer diagnosis, rather than before, with late‐stage disease.
- The team could not assess the effectiveness of state and local cancer screening programs in preventing late-stage cancer.
DISCLOSURES:
- The study was funded by the Ohio Department of Health and the Georgia Department of Public Health.
- One researcher reported a grant from Celgene.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- To assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer diagnosis, investigators compared the volume of patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Ohio, which expanded its Medicaid coverage in 2014, with that of Georgia, which did not.
- State cancer registries were queried from 2010 to 2017 to identify adults younger than 64 years with incident female breast cancer, cervical cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC).
TAKEAWAY:
- In Ohio, researchers found a substantial increase in diagnoses for all three cancers among Medicaid patients after expansion. The increase ranged from 42% for breast cancer to 77% for CRC.
- In Georgia, fewer Medicaid patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in the postexpansion period. There were also smaller increases in the number of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer (6%) and CRC (13%), compared with the postexpansion increases seen in Ohio.
- The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer fell 7% among Medicaid patients in Ohio after expansion.
- The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage CRC fell 6% among Medicaid patients in George and Ohio. The Georgia results are potentially attributable to increases in state and local screening programs, especially in rural areas.
IN PRACTICE:
“These starkly different patterns in changes in the number of diagnosed [breast cancer], [cervical cancer], and CRC cases among patients on Medicaid in Ohio versus Georgia in the postexpansion period suggest that expanding insurance coverage might have effectively improved access to care,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Kirsten Eom, PhD, of the MetroHealth Population Health Research Institute, Cleveland, was published online in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
- Medicaid status was determined at diagnosis; past studies have associated being enrolled in Medicaid at the time of cancer diagnosis, rather than before, with late‐stage disease.
- The team could not assess the effectiveness of state and local cancer screening programs in preventing late-stage cancer.
DISCLOSURES:
- The study was funded by the Ohio Department of Health and the Georgia Department of Public Health.
- One researcher reported a grant from Celgene.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANCER
Offering HPV vaccine at age 9 linked to greater series completion
BALTIMORE – , according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.
Changing attitudes
“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.
Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.
However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.
“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
Debundling vaccines
Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.
Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.
The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
Timing is important
“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”
One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.
“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”
The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.
“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.
Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.
BALTIMORE – , according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.
Changing attitudes
“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.
Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.
However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.
“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
Debundling vaccines
Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.
Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.
The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
Timing is important
“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”
One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.
“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”
The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.
“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.
Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.
BALTIMORE – , according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.
Changing attitudes
“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.
Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.
However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.
“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
Debundling vaccines
Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.
Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.
The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
Timing is important
“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”
One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.
“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”
The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.
“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.
Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.
AT ACOG 2023
FDA OKs dostarlimab plus chemo for endometrial cancer
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).
The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.
MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.
“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”
that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.
Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.
Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.
The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.
Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).
The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.
MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.
“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”
that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.
Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.
Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.
The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.
Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).
The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.
MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.
“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”
that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.
Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.
Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.
The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.
Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.