Gynecologic Cancer

The number of cancer survivors who report functional limitation has more than doubled in 20 years, according to a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.

Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.

The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.

For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
 

Patients surveyed on function

Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.

Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
 

Not just a result of living longer

Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.

“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.

Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.

Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.

“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
 

Quality of life beyond survivorship

Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.

“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.

The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.

There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”

Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.

“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.

A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

The number of cancer survivors who report functional limitation has more than doubled in 20 years, according to a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.

Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.

The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.

For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
 

Patients surveyed on function

Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.

Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
 

Not just a result of living longer

Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.

“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.

Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.

Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.

“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
 

Quality of life beyond survivorship

Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.

“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.

The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.

There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”

Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.

“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.

A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

The number of cancer survivors who report functional limitation has more than doubled in 20 years, according to a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.

Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.

The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.

For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
 

Patients surveyed on function

Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.

Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
 

Not just a result of living longer

Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.

“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.

Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.

Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.

“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
 

Quality of life beyond survivorship

Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.

“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.

The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.

There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”

Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.

“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.

A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

Adults with cancer experienced significant reductions in pain after taking medicinal cannabis, in a study.

Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.

In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.

The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.

Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.

Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).

Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).

“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.

Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.

Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.

The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with cancer experienced significant reductions in pain after taking medicinal cannabis, in a study.

Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.

In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.

The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.

Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.

Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).

Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).

“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.

Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.

Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.

The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with cancer experienced significant reductions in pain after taking medicinal cannabis, in a study.

Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.

In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.

The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.

Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.

Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).

Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).

“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.

Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.

Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.

The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) model that used only a single histopathological slide predicted the risk of distant recurrence among endometrial cancer patients in a new study.

Endometrial cancer is the most frequently occurring uterine cancer. Early-stage patients have about a 95% 5-year survival, but distant recurrence is associated with very poor survival, according to Sarah Fremond, MSc, an author of the research (Abstract 5695), which she presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Most patients with endometrial cancer have a good prognosis and would not require any adjuvant treatment, but there is a proportion that will develop distant recurrence. For those you want to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy, because currently in the adjuvant setting, that’s the only treatment that is known to lower the risk of distant recurrence. But that also causes morbidity. Therefore, our clinical question was how to accurately identify patients at low and high risk of distant recurrence to reduce under- and overtreatment,” said Ms. Fremond, a PhD candidate at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Pathologists can attempt such predictions, but Ms. Fremond noted that there are challenges. “There is a lot of variability between pathologists, and we don’t even use the entire visual information present in the H&E [hematoxylin and eosin] tumor slide. When it comes to molecular testing, it is hampered by cost, turnaround time, and sometimes interpretation. It’s quite complex to combine those data to specifically target risk of distant recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer.”

In her presentation, Ms. Fremond described how she and her colleagues used digitized histopathological slides in their research. She and her coauthors developed the AI model as part of a collaboration that included the AIRMEC Consortium, Leiden University Medical Center, the TransPORTEC Consortium, and the University of Zürich.

The researchers used long-term follow-up data from 1,408 patients drawn from three clinical cohorts and participants in the PORTEC-1, PORTEC-2, and PORTEC-3 studies, which tested radiotherapy and adjuvant therapy outcomes in endometrial cancer. Patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. In the model development phase, the system analyzed a single representative histopathological slide image from each patient and compared it with the known time to distant recurrence to identify patterns.

Once the system had been trained, the researchers applied it to a novel group of 353 patients. It ranked 89 patients as having a low risk of recurrence, 175 at intermediate risk, and 89 at high risk of recurrence. The system performed well: 3.37% of low-risk patients experienced a distant recurrence, as did 15.43% of the intermediate-risk group and 36% of the high-risk group.

The researchers also employed an external validation group with 152 patients and three slides per patient, with a 2.8-year follow-up. The model performed with a C index of 0.805 (±0.0136) when a random slide was selected for each patient, and the median predicted risk score per patient was associated with differences in distant recurrence-free survival between the three risk groups with a C index of 0.816 (P < .0001).
 

Questions about research and their answers

Session moderator Kristin Swanson, PhD, asked if the AI could be used with the pathology slide’s visible features to learn more about the underlying biology and pathophysiology of tumors.

“Overlying the HECTOR on to the tissue seems like a logical opportunity to go and then explore the biology and what’s attributed as a high-risk region,” said Dr. Swanson, who is director of the Mathematical NeuroOncology Lab and codirector of the Precision NeuroTherapeutics Innovation Program at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

Ms. Fremond agreed that the AI has the potential to be used that way.”

During the Q&A, an audience member asked how likely the model is to perform in populations that differ significantly from the populations used in her study.

Ms. Fremond responded that the populations used to develop and test the models were in or close to the Netherlands, and little information was available regarding patient ethnicity. “There is a possibility that perhaps we would have a different performance on a population that includes more minorities. That needs to be checked,” said Ms. Fremond.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Ms. Fremond and Dr. Swanson have no relevant financial disclosures.

A deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) model that used only a single histopathological slide predicted the risk of distant recurrence among endometrial cancer patients in a new study.

Endometrial cancer is the most frequently occurring uterine cancer. Early-stage patients have about a 95% 5-year survival, but distant recurrence is associated with very poor survival, according to Sarah Fremond, MSc, an author of the research (Abstract 5695), which she presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Most patients with endometrial cancer have a good prognosis and would not require any adjuvant treatment, but there is a proportion that will develop distant recurrence. For those you want to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy, because currently in the adjuvant setting, that’s the only treatment that is known to lower the risk of distant recurrence. But that also causes morbidity. Therefore, our clinical question was how to accurately identify patients at low and high risk of distant recurrence to reduce under- and overtreatment,” said Ms. Fremond, a PhD candidate at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Pathologists can attempt such predictions, but Ms. Fremond noted that there are challenges. “There is a lot of variability between pathologists, and we don’t even use the entire visual information present in the H&E [hematoxylin and eosin] tumor slide. When it comes to molecular testing, it is hampered by cost, turnaround time, and sometimes interpretation. It’s quite complex to combine those data to specifically target risk of distant recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer.”

In her presentation, Ms. Fremond described how she and her colleagues used digitized histopathological slides in their research. She and her coauthors developed the AI model as part of a collaboration that included the AIRMEC Consortium, Leiden University Medical Center, the TransPORTEC Consortium, and the University of Zürich.

The researchers used long-term follow-up data from 1,408 patients drawn from three clinical cohorts and participants in the PORTEC-1, PORTEC-2, and PORTEC-3 studies, which tested radiotherapy and adjuvant therapy outcomes in endometrial cancer. Patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. In the model development phase, the system analyzed a single representative histopathological slide image from each patient and compared it with the known time to distant recurrence to identify patterns.

Once the system had been trained, the researchers applied it to a novel group of 353 patients. It ranked 89 patients as having a low risk of recurrence, 175 at intermediate risk, and 89 at high risk of recurrence. The system performed well: 3.37% of low-risk patients experienced a distant recurrence, as did 15.43% of the intermediate-risk group and 36% of the high-risk group.

The researchers also employed an external validation group with 152 patients and three slides per patient, with a 2.8-year follow-up. The model performed with a C index of 0.805 (±0.0136) when a random slide was selected for each patient, and the median predicted risk score per patient was associated with differences in distant recurrence-free survival between the three risk groups with a C index of 0.816 (P < .0001).
 

Questions about research and their answers

Session moderator Kristin Swanson, PhD, asked if the AI could be used with the pathology slide’s visible features to learn more about the underlying biology and pathophysiology of tumors.

“Overlying the HECTOR on to the tissue seems like a logical opportunity to go and then explore the biology and what’s attributed as a high-risk region,” said Dr. Swanson, who is director of the Mathematical NeuroOncology Lab and codirector of the Precision NeuroTherapeutics Innovation Program at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

Ms. Fremond agreed that the AI has the potential to be used that way.”

During the Q&A, an audience member asked how likely the model is to perform in populations that differ significantly from the populations used in her study.

Ms. Fremond responded that the populations used to develop and test the models were in or close to the Netherlands, and little information was available regarding patient ethnicity. “There is a possibility that perhaps we would have a different performance on a population that includes more minorities. That needs to be checked,” said Ms. Fremond.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Ms. Fremond and Dr. Swanson have no relevant financial disclosures.

A deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) model that used only a single histopathological slide predicted the risk of distant recurrence among endometrial cancer patients in a new study.

Endometrial cancer is the most frequently occurring uterine cancer. Early-stage patients have about a 95% 5-year survival, but distant recurrence is associated with very poor survival, according to Sarah Fremond, MSc, an author of the research (Abstract 5695), which she presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Most patients with endometrial cancer have a good prognosis and would not require any adjuvant treatment, but there is a proportion that will develop distant recurrence. For those you want to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy, because currently in the adjuvant setting, that’s the only treatment that is known to lower the risk of distant recurrence. But that also causes morbidity. Therefore, our clinical question was how to accurately identify patients at low and high risk of distant recurrence to reduce under- and overtreatment,” said Ms. Fremond, a PhD candidate at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Pathologists can attempt such predictions, but Ms. Fremond noted that there are challenges. “There is a lot of variability between pathologists, and we don’t even use the entire visual information present in the H&E [hematoxylin and eosin] tumor slide. When it comes to molecular testing, it is hampered by cost, turnaround time, and sometimes interpretation. It’s quite complex to combine those data to specifically target risk of distant recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer.”

In her presentation, Ms. Fremond described how she and her colleagues used digitized histopathological slides in their research. She and her coauthors developed the AI model as part of a collaboration that included the AIRMEC Consortium, Leiden University Medical Center, the TransPORTEC Consortium, and the University of Zürich.

The researchers used long-term follow-up data from 1,408 patients drawn from three clinical cohorts and participants in the PORTEC-1, PORTEC-2, and PORTEC-3 studies, which tested radiotherapy and adjuvant therapy outcomes in endometrial cancer. Patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. In the model development phase, the system analyzed a single representative histopathological slide image from each patient and compared it with the known time to distant recurrence to identify patterns.

Once the system had been trained, the researchers applied it to a novel group of 353 patients. It ranked 89 patients as having a low risk of recurrence, 175 at intermediate risk, and 89 at high risk of recurrence. The system performed well: 3.37% of low-risk patients experienced a distant recurrence, as did 15.43% of the intermediate-risk group and 36% of the high-risk group.

The researchers also employed an external validation group with 152 patients and three slides per patient, with a 2.8-year follow-up. The model performed with a C index of 0.805 (±0.0136) when a random slide was selected for each patient, and the median predicted risk score per patient was associated with differences in distant recurrence-free survival between the three risk groups with a C index of 0.816 (P < .0001).
 

Questions about research and their answers

Session moderator Kristin Swanson, PhD, asked if the AI could be used with the pathology slide’s visible features to learn more about the underlying biology and pathophysiology of tumors.

“Overlying the HECTOR on to the tissue seems like a logical opportunity to go and then explore the biology and what’s attributed as a high-risk region,” said Dr. Swanson, who is director of the Mathematical NeuroOncology Lab and codirector of the Precision NeuroTherapeutics Innovation Program at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

Ms. Fremond agreed that the AI has the potential to be used that way.”

During the Q&A, an audience member asked how likely the model is to perform in populations that differ significantly from the populations used in her study.

Ms. Fremond responded that the populations used to develop and test the models were in or close to the Netherlands, and little information was available regarding patient ethnicity. “There is a possibility that perhaps we would have a different performance on a population that includes more minorities. That needs to be checked,” said Ms. Fremond.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Ms. Fremond and Dr. Swanson have no relevant financial disclosures.

Women who underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a benign hysterectomy had a higher 10-year mortality rate across all ages than those who had hysterectomies alone, based on data from more than 140,000 individuals.

Although bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with hysterectomy has been shown to reduce the risk for ovarian cancer in women at increased risk, current guidelines are touting ovarian conservation, especially in premenopausal women, wrote Mathilde Gottschau, MD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, and colleagues. However, post-hysterectomy outcomes in women with and without BSO have not been well examined.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a nationwide registry of women in Denmark aged 20 years and older who underwent benign hysterectomies with BSO (22,974 women) and without BSO (120,011 women) between 1977 and 2017. The women were divided into subgroups based on age; those younger than 45 years were defined as premenopausal, those aged 45-54 years were defined as perimenopausal, those aged 55-64 were defined as early postmenopausal, and those aged 65 and older were defined as late menopausal.

The primary outcomes were hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, cancer incidence, and all-cause mortality over a median follow-up period of 22 years.

For women younger than 45 years, the 10-year cumulative risk for all cancer was lower with BSO than without, but the risk of overall cardiovascular disease was higher with BSO, with higher levels of ischemic heart disease and stroke, compared with women without BSO. The 10-year cumulative mortality was higher with BSO than without (2.16% vs. 1.94%).

For women aged 45-54 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO (risk difference, 0.73 percentage points) associated mainly with nonbreast cancer, and both 10-year and 20-year mortality were higher in those with BSO than those without.

For women aged 55-65 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO. Cumulative overall mortality was higher at 10 years for those with BSO, but lower at 20 years.

For women aged 65 years and older, both 10-year and 20-year cumulative overall cancer risk was higher with BSO than without (RD, 2.54 and 4.57 percentage points, respectively). Cumulative mortality was higher in the BSO group at 10 years, but lower at 20 years.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of age to determine menopausal status and the lack of genetic predisposition data, and the focus only on a relatively homogeneous population that may not be generalizable to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a nationwide registry and the long-term follow-up period, they said. The current study indicates that the health risks outweigh the potential benefits of BSO with benign hysterectomy for premenopausal women and supports the current guidelines for ovarian conservation in these women with low lifetime ovarian cancer risk, they said. For postmenopausal women, the data support a cautious approach to BSO given the lack of a clear survival benefit and cancer excess, they concluded.
 

Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancers favors BSO

“The question of removing ovaries at the time of benign hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer in low-risk women has been widely debated,” which has contributed to the variation in incidence rates of unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy over time, wrote Elizabeth Casiano Evans, MD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and Deslyn T.G. Hobson, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, in an accompanying editorial.

Ovarian cancer often goes undiagnosed until an advanced stage, and BSO can significantly reduce risk in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, they noted.

For women without increased risk, those who are premenopausal may wish to preserve ovarian function, but women also may benefit from improvements in a range of menopause-related symptoms including vasomotor and urogenital symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric and cognitive symptoms, they said.

“In addition, salpingectomy alone has a role in significantly reducing ovarian cancer incidence without compromising ovarian function because the fallopian tube has been found to be at the origin of many ovarian cancer cases,” they noted. In the current study, “the crude ovarian cancer risk was lower with BSO” across all age groups, the editorialists said.

The choice of whether to include BSO at the time of benign hysterectomy is complicated, with many factors to consider, the editorialists wrote, and the current study supports the need for informed, shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society’s Scientific Committee and the Mermaid Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Women who underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a benign hysterectomy had a higher 10-year mortality rate across all ages than those who had hysterectomies alone, based on data from more than 140,000 individuals.

Although bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with hysterectomy has been shown to reduce the risk for ovarian cancer in women at increased risk, current guidelines are touting ovarian conservation, especially in premenopausal women, wrote Mathilde Gottschau, MD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, and colleagues. However, post-hysterectomy outcomes in women with and without BSO have not been well examined.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a nationwide registry of women in Denmark aged 20 years and older who underwent benign hysterectomies with BSO (22,974 women) and without BSO (120,011 women) between 1977 and 2017. The women were divided into subgroups based on age; those younger than 45 years were defined as premenopausal, those aged 45-54 years were defined as perimenopausal, those aged 55-64 were defined as early postmenopausal, and those aged 65 and older were defined as late menopausal.

The primary outcomes were hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, cancer incidence, and all-cause mortality over a median follow-up period of 22 years.

For women younger than 45 years, the 10-year cumulative risk for all cancer was lower with BSO than without, but the risk of overall cardiovascular disease was higher with BSO, with higher levels of ischemic heart disease and stroke, compared with women without BSO. The 10-year cumulative mortality was higher with BSO than without (2.16% vs. 1.94%).

For women aged 45-54 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO (risk difference, 0.73 percentage points) associated mainly with nonbreast cancer, and both 10-year and 20-year mortality were higher in those with BSO than those without.

For women aged 55-65 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO. Cumulative overall mortality was higher at 10 years for those with BSO, but lower at 20 years.

For women aged 65 years and older, both 10-year and 20-year cumulative overall cancer risk was higher with BSO than without (RD, 2.54 and 4.57 percentage points, respectively). Cumulative mortality was higher in the BSO group at 10 years, but lower at 20 years.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of age to determine menopausal status and the lack of genetic predisposition data, and the focus only on a relatively homogeneous population that may not be generalizable to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a nationwide registry and the long-term follow-up period, they said. The current study indicates that the health risks outweigh the potential benefits of BSO with benign hysterectomy for premenopausal women and supports the current guidelines for ovarian conservation in these women with low lifetime ovarian cancer risk, they said. For postmenopausal women, the data support a cautious approach to BSO given the lack of a clear survival benefit and cancer excess, they concluded.
 

Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancers favors BSO

“The question of removing ovaries at the time of benign hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer in low-risk women has been widely debated,” which has contributed to the variation in incidence rates of unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy over time, wrote Elizabeth Casiano Evans, MD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and Deslyn T.G. Hobson, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, in an accompanying editorial.

Ovarian cancer often goes undiagnosed until an advanced stage, and BSO can significantly reduce risk in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, they noted.

For women without increased risk, those who are premenopausal may wish to preserve ovarian function, but women also may benefit from improvements in a range of menopause-related symptoms including vasomotor and urogenital symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric and cognitive symptoms, they said.

“In addition, salpingectomy alone has a role in significantly reducing ovarian cancer incidence without compromising ovarian function because the fallopian tube has been found to be at the origin of many ovarian cancer cases,” they noted. In the current study, “the crude ovarian cancer risk was lower with BSO” across all age groups, the editorialists said.

The choice of whether to include BSO at the time of benign hysterectomy is complicated, with many factors to consider, the editorialists wrote, and the current study supports the need for informed, shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society’s Scientific Committee and the Mermaid Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Women who underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a benign hysterectomy had a higher 10-year mortality rate across all ages than those who had hysterectomies alone, based on data from more than 140,000 individuals.

Although bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with hysterectomy has been shown to reduce the risk for ovarian cancer in women at increased risk, current guidelines are touting ovarian conservation, especially in premenopausal women, wrote Mathilde Gottschau, MD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, and colleagues. However, post-hysterectomy outcomes in women with and without BSO have not been well examined.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a nationwide registry of women in Denmark aged 20 years and older who underwent benign hysterectomies with BSO (22,974 women) and without BSO (120,011 women) between 1977 and 2017. The women were divided into subgroups based on age; those younger than 45 years were defined as premenopausal, those aged 45-54 years were defined as perimenopausal, those aged 55-64 were defined as early postmenopausal, and those aged 65 and older were defined as late menopausal.

The primary outcomes were hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, cancer incidence, and all-cause mortality over a median follow-up period of 22 years.

For women younger than 45 years, the 10-year cumulative risk for all cancer was lower with BSO than without, but the risk of overall cardiovascular disease was higher with BSO, with higher levels of ischemic heart disease and stroke, compared with women without BSO. The 10-year cumulative mortality was higher with BSO than without (2.16% vs. 1.94%).

For women aged 45-54 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO (risk difference, 0.73 percentage points) associated mainly with nonbreast cancer, and both 10-year and 20-year mortality were higher in those with BSO than those without.

For women aged 55-65 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO. Cumulative overall mortality was higher at 10 years for those with BSO, but lower at 20 years.

For women aged 65 years and older, both 10-year and 20-year cumulative overall cancer risk was higher with BSO than without (RD, 2.54 and 4.57 percentage points, respectively). Cumulative mortality was higher in the BSO group at 10 years, but lower at 20 years.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of age to determine menopausal status and the lack of genetic predisposition data, and the focus only on a relatively homogeneous population that may not be generalizable to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a nationwide registry and the long-term follow-up period, they said. The current study indicates that the health risks outweigh the potential benefits of BSO with benign hysterectomy for premenopausal women and supports the current guidelines for ovarian conservation in these women with low lifetime ovarian cancer risk, they said. For postmenopausal women, the data support a cautious approach to BSO given the lack of a clear survival benefit and cancer excess, they concluded.
 

Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancers favors BSO

“The question of removing ovaries at the time of benign hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer in low-risk women has been widely debated,” which has contributed to the variation in incidence rates of unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy over time, wrote Elizabeth Casiano Evans, MD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and Deslyn T.G. Hobson, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, in an accompanying editorial.

Ovarian cancer often goes undiagnosed until an advanced stage, and BSO can significantly reduce risk in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, they noted.

For women without increased risk, those who are premenopausal may wish to preserve ovarian function, but women also may benefit from improvements in a range of menopause-related symptoms including vasomotor and urogenital symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric and cognitive symptoms, they said.

“In addition, salpingectomy alone has a role in significantly reducing ovarian cancer incidence without compromising ovarian function because the fallopian tube has been found to be at the origin of many ovarian cancer cases,” they noted. In the current study, “the crude ovarian cancer risk was lower with BSO” across all age groups, the editorialists said.

The choice of whether to include BSO at the time of benign hysterectomy is complicated, with many factors to consider, the editorialists wrote, and the current study supports the need for informed, shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society’s Scientific Committee and the Mermaid Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) are estimated to comprise 10%-15% of all epithelial tumors of the ovary. They are characterized by their behavior, which falls somewhere between benign ovarian masses and frank carcinomas. They have cytologic characteristics suggesting malignancy, such as higher cellular proliferation and more variable nuclear atypia, but, unlike carcinomas, they lack destructive stromal invasion. For decades after their recognition by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics in 1971, these tumors were classified as being of low malignant potential (and subsequently referred to as LMP tumors of the ovary). Beginning with the 2014 World Health Organization classification, the recommended terminology is now borderline tumor of the ovary.

The primary treatment for BOTs is surgery. With a mean age at diagnosis in the fifth decade, many patients with BOTs desire ovarian preservation to maintain fertility and/or prevent surgical menopause. This raises multiple questions regarding the use of fertility-sparing surgery for BOTs: What types of procedures are safe and should be offered? For those patients who undergo fertility-sparing surgery initially, is additional surgery indicated after completion of childbearing or at an age closer to natural menopause? What should this completion surgery include?

Ovarian-sparing surgery

The diagnosis of a BOT is frequently only confirmed after the decision for ovarian conservation has been made. What should be considered before electing to proceed with ovarian cystectomy instead of unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (USO)?

Is the risk of recurrence higher with cystectomy versus oophorectomy?

Yes. The risk of recurrence of BOT appears to be higher after cystectomy than it is after oophorectomy. There is a large range reported in the literature, with the risk of recurrence after cystectomy described as between 12% and 58%. Most studies report recurrences between 25% and 35% of patients who undergo cystectomy. In contrast, the risk of recurrence after USO is often reported to be approximately 10%. Higher risk of recurrence after cystectomy is speculated to be due to leaving some BOT at the time of initial surgery.

Multiple meta-analyses have found an increased risk of recurrence after cystectomy. The risk of recurrence after unilateral cystectomy was 19.4%, compared with 9.1% after USO, in 2,145 patients included in a 2017 meta-analysis.¹ Similarly, a 2021 meta-analysis found a significantly higher rate of BOT recurrence in patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral cystectomy compared with USO (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-2.57).²
 

Does the higher recurrence risk translate into a difference in long-term outcomes?

No. Despite an increased risk of recurrence after cystectomy, ovarian-sparing surgery does not appear to alter patients’ survival. The pooled mortality estimate was 1.6% for those undergoing fertility-sparing surgery (95% CI, 0.011-0.023), compared with 2.0% for those undergoing radical surgery (95% CI, 0.014-0.029), in a 2015 meta-analysis of over 5,100 patients. The analysis included studies in which patients underwent unilateral cystectomy, bilateral cystectomy, USO, or USO plus contralateral cystectomy. The low mortality rate did not allow for comparison between the different types of fertility-sparing surgeries.³

Do we accept a higher risk of recurrence with ovarian sparing surgery to improve fertility?

Data are mixed. When we examine studies describing fertility rates after conservative surgery, there are significant limitations to interpreting the data available. Some studies do not differentiate among patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery, or between those who had cystectomy versus USO. Other studies do not report the number of patients who tried to achieve pregnancy after surgery. Conception rates are reported to be as high as 88.2%, which was in 116 patients who were able to be reached after fertility-sparing surgery (retained at least one ovary). Of the 51 patients who tried to conceive, 45 were successful.⁴

Multiple studies and meta-analyses have shown no difference in postoperative pregnancy rates when comparing oophorectomy to cystectomy. For instance, in a 2021 meta-analysis, there was no significant difference noted in pregnancy rates between patients who underwent USO versus cystectomy (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.60-1.42).

There are some data that support improved postoperative pregnancy rates in more conservative surgery, especially in the setting of bilateral BOT. In a small study of 32 patients who had laparoscopic staging for bilateral BOTs, patients were randomized to unilateral oophorectomy plus contralateral cystectomy or to bilateral cystectomy, which was referred to as ultraconservative surgery. The time to first recurrence was shorter in the ultraconservative group (although this lost significance when regression analysis was performed), but the time to first live birth was shorter and the relative chance of having a baby was higher in the bilateral cystectomy group.⁵

Ovarian-sparing procedures should be offered to patients in the setting of BOT. With ovarian-sparing surgery, it is important to counsel patients about the increased risk of recurrence and need for long-term follow-up. Pregnancy rates are generally good after fertility-sparing surgery. Surgery to conserve both ovaries does not seem to improve pregnancy rates in the setting of unilateral BOTs.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Jiao X et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Nov;27(9):1833-41.

2. Wang P and Fang L. World J Surg Oncol. 2021 Apr 21;19(1):132.

3. Vasconcelos I and de Sousa Mendes M. Eur J Cancer. 2015 Mar;51(5):620-31.

4. Song T et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 May;21(4):640-6.

5. Palomba S et al. Hum Reprod. 2010 Aug;25(8):1966-72.

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) are estimated to comprise 10%-15% of all epithelial tumors of the ovary. They are characterized by their behavior, which falls somewhere between benign ovarian masses and frank carcinomas. They have cytologic characteristics suggesting malignancy, such as higher cellular proliferation and more variable nuclear atypia, but, unlike carcinomas, they lack destructive stromal invasion. For decades after their recognition by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics in 1971, these tumors were classified as being of low malignant potential (and subsequently referred to as LMP tumors of the ovary). Beginning with the 2014 World Health Organization classification, the recommended terminology is now borderline tumor of the ovary.

The primary treatment for BOTs is surgery. With a mean age at diagnosis in the fifth decade, many patients with BOTs desire ovarian preservation to maintain fertility and/or prevent surgical menopause. This raises multiple questions regarding the use of fertility-sparing surgery for BOTs: What types of procedures are safe and should be offered? For those patients who undergo fertility-sparing surgery initially, is additional surgery indicated after completion of childbearing or at an age closer to natural menopause? What should this completion surgery include?

Ovarian-sparing surgery

The diagnosis of a BOT is frequently only confirmed after the decision for ovarian conservation has been made. What should be considered before electing to proceed with ovarian cystectomy instead of unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (USO)?

Is the risk of recurrence higher with cystectomy versus oophorectomy?

Yes. The risk of recurrence of BOT appears to be higher after cystectomy than it is after oophorectomy. There is a large range reported in the literature, with the risk of recurrence after cystectomy described as between 12% and 58%. Most studies report recurrences between 25% and 35% of patients who undergo cystectomy. In contrast, the risk of recurrence after USO is often reported to be approximately 10%. Higher risk of recurrence after cystectomy is speculated to be due to leaving some BOT at the time of initial surgery.

Multiple meta-analyses have found an increased risk of recurrence after cystectomy. The risk of recurrence after unilateral cystectomy was 19.4%, compared with 9.1% after USO, in 2,145 patients included in a 2017 meta-analysis.¹ Similarly, a 2021 meta-analysis found a significantly higher rate of BOT recurrence in patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral cystectomy compared with USO (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-2.57).²
 

Does the higher recurrence risk translate into a difference in long-term outcomes?

No. Despite an increased risk of recurrence after cystectomy, ovarian-sparing surgery does not appear to alter patients’ survival. The pooled mortality estimate was 1.6% for those undergoing fertility-sparing surgery (95% CI, 0.011-0.023), compared with 2.0% for those undergoing radical surgery (95% CI, 0.014-0.029), in a 2015 meta-analysis of over 5,100 patients. The analysis included studies in which patients underwent unilateral cystectomy, bilateral cystectomy, USO, or USO plus contralateral cystectomy. The low mortality rate did not allow for comparison between the different types of fertility-sparing surgeries.³

Do we accept a higher risk of recurrence with ovarian sparing surgery to improve fertility?

Data are mixed. When we examine studies describing fertility rates after conservative surgery, there are significant limitations to interpreting the data available. Some studies do not differentiate among patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery, or between those who had cystectomy versus USO. Other studies do not report the number of patients who tried to achieve pregnancy after surgery. Conception rates are reported to be as high as 88.2%, which was in 116 patients who were able to be reached after fertility-sparing surgery (retained at least one ovary). Of the 51 patients who tried to conceive, 45 were successful.⁴

Multiple studies and meta-analyses have shown no difference in postoperative pregnancy rates when comparing oophorectomy to cystectomy. For instance, in a 2021 meta-analysis, there was no significant difference noted in pregnancy rates between patients who underwent USO versus cystectomy (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.60-1.42).

There are some data that support improved postoperative pregnancy rates in more conservative surgery, especially in the setting of bilateral BOT. In a small study of 32 patients who had laparoscopic staging for bilateral BOTs, patients were randomized to unilateral oophorectomy plus contralateral cystectomy or to bilateral cystectomy, which was referred to as ultraconservative surgery. The time to first recurrence was shorter in the ultraconservative group (although this lost significance when regression analysis was performed), but the time to first live birth was shorter and the relative chance of having a baby was higher in the bilateral cystectomy group.⁵

Ovarian-sparing procedures should be offered to patients in the setting of BOT. With ovarian-sparing surgery, it is important to counsel patients about the increased risk of recurrence and need for long-term follow-up. Pregnancy rates are generally good after fertility-sparing surgery. Surgery to conserve both ovaries does not seem to improve pregnancy rates in the setting of unilateral BOTs.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Jiao X et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Nov;27(9):1833-41.

2. Wang P and Fang L. World J Surg Oncol. 2021 Apr 21;19(1):132.

3. Vasconcelos I and de Sousa Mendes M. Eur J Cancer. 2015 Mar;51(5):620-31.

4. Song T et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 May;21(4):640-6.

5. Palomba S et al. Hum Reprod. 2010 Aug;25(8):1966-72.

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) are estimated to comprise 10%-15% of all epithelial tumors of the ovary. They are characterized by their behavior, which falls somewhere between benign ovarian masses and frank carcinomas. They have cytologic characteristics suggesting malignancy, such as higher cellular proliferation and more variable nuclear atypia, but, unlike carcinomas, they lack destructive stromal invasion. For decades after their recognition by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics in 1971, these tumors were classified as being of low malignant potential (and subsequently referred to as LMP tumors of the ovary). Beginning with the 2014 World Health Organization classification, the recommended terminology is now borderline tumor of the ovary.

The primary treatment for BOTs is surgery. With a mean age at diagnosis in the fifth decade, many patients with BOTs desire ovarian preservation to maintain fertility and/or prevent surgical menopause. This raises multiple questions regarding the use of fertility-sparing surgery for BOTs: What types of procedures are safe and should be offered? For those patients who undergo fertility-sparing surgery initially, is additional surgery indicated after completion of childbearing or at an age closer to natural menopause? What should this completion surgery include?

Ovarian-sparing surgery

The diagnosis of a BOT is frequently only confirmed after the decision for ovarian conservation has been made. What should be considered before electing to proceed with ovarian cystectomy instead of unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (USO)?

Is the risk of recurrence higher with cystectomy versus oophorectomy?

Yes. The risk of recurrence of BOT appears to be higher after cystectomy than it is after oophorectomy. There is a large range reported in the literature, with the risk of recurrence after cystectomy described as between 12% and 58%. Most studies report recurrences between 25% and 35% of patients who undergo cystectomy. In contrast, the risk of recurrence after USO is often reported to be approximately 10%. Higher risk of recurrence after cystectomy is speculated to be due to leaving some BOT at the time of initial surgery.

Multiple meta-analyses have found an increased risk of recurrence after cystectomy. The risk of recurrence after unilateral cystectomy was 19.4%, compared with 9.1% after USO, in 2,145 patients included in a 2017 meta-analysis.¹ Similarly, a 2021 meta-analysis found a significantly higher rate of BOT recurrence in patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral cystectomy compared with USO (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-2.57).²
 

Does the higher recurrence risk translate into a difference in long-term outcomes?

No. Despite an increased risk of recurrence after cystectomy, ovarian-sparing surgery does not appear to alter patients’ survival. The pooled mortality estimate was 1.6% for those undergoing fertility-sparing surgery (95% CI, 0.011-0.023), compared with 2.0% for those undergoing radical surgery (95% CI, 0.014-0.029), in a 2015 meta-analysis of over 5,100 patients. The analysis included studies in which patients underwent unilateral cystectomy, bilateral cystectomy, USO, or USO plus contralateral cystectomy. The low mortality rate did not allow for comparison between the different types of fertility-sparing surgeries.³

Do we accept a higher risk of recurrence with ovarian sparing surgery to improve fertility?

Data are mixed. When we examine studies describing fertility rates after conservative surgery, there are significant limitations to interpreting the data available. Some studies do not differentiate among patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery, or between those who had cystectomy versus USO. Other studies do not report the number of patients who tried to achieve pregnancy after surgery. Conception rates are reported to be as high as 88.2%, which was in 116 patients who were able to be reached after fertility-sparing surgery (retained at least one ovary). Of the 51 patients who tried to conceive, 45 were successful.⁴

Multiple studies and meta-analyses have shown no difference in postoperative pregnancy rates when comparing oophorectomy to cystectomy. For instance, in a 2021 meta-analysis, there was no significant difference noted in pregnancy rates between patients who underwent USO versus cystectomy (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.60-1.42).

There are some data that support improved postoperative pregnancy rates in more conservative surgery, especially in the setting of bilateral BOT. In a small study of 32 patients who had laparoscopic staging for bilateral BOTs, patients were randomized to unilateral oophorectomy plus contralateral cystectomy or to bilateral cystectomy, which was referred to as ultraconservative surgery. The time to first recurrence was shorter in the ultraconservative group (although this lost significance when regression analysis was performed), but the time to first live birth was shorter and the relative chance of having a baby was higher in the bilateral cystectomy group.⁵

Ovarian-sparing procedures should be offered to patients in the setting of BOT. With ovarian-sparing surgery, it is important to counsel patients about the increased risk of recurrence and need for long-term follow-up. Pregnancy rates are generally good after fertility-sparing surgery. Surgery to conserve both ovaries does not seem to improve pregnancy rates in the setting of unilateral BOTs.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Jiao X et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Nov;27(9):1833-41.

2. Wang P and Fang L. World J Surg Oncol. 2021 Apr 21;19(1):132.

3. Vasconcelos I and de Sousa Mendes M. Eur J Cancer. 2015 Mar;51(5):620-31.

4. Song T et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 May;21(4):640-6.

5. Palomba S et al. Hum Reprod. 2010 Aug;25(8):1966-72.

CASE Patient inquires about new technology to detect cancer

A 51-year-old woman (para 2) presents to your clinic for a routine gynecology exam. She is up to date on her screening mammogram and Pap testing. She has her first colonoscopy scheduled for next month. She has a 10-year remote smoking history, but she stopped smoking in her late twenties. Her cousin was recently diagnosed with skin cancer, her father had prostate cancer and is now in remission, and her paternal grandmother died of ovarian cancer. She knows ovarian cancer does not have an effective screening test, and she recently heard on the news about a new blood test that can detect cancer before symptoms start. She would like to know more about this test. Could it replace her next Pap, mammogram, and future colonoscopies? She also wants to know—How can a simple blood test detect cancer?

The power of genomics in cancer care

Since the first human genome was sequenced in 2000, the power of genomics has been evident across many aspects of medicine, including cancer care.¹ Whereas the first human genome to be sequenced took more than 10 years to sequence and cost over  $1 billion, sequencing of your entire genome can now be obtained for less than $400—with results in a week.²

Genomics is now an integral part of cancer care, with results having implications for both cancer risk and prevention as well as more individualized treatment. For example, a healthy 42-year-old patient with a strong family history of breast cancer may undergo genetic testing and discover she has a mutation in the tumor suppression gene BRCA1, which carries a 39% to 58% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer.³ By undergoing a risk-reducing bilateral salpingooophorectomy she will lower her ovarian cancer risk by up to 96%.^4,5 A 67-year-old with a new diagnosis of stage III ovarian cancer and a BRCA2 mutation may be in remission for 5+ years due to her BRCA2 mutation, which makes her eligible for the use of the poly(ADPribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib.⁶ Genetic testing as illustrated above has led to decreased cancer-related mortality and prolonged survival.⁷ However, many women with such germline mutations are faced with difficult choices about surgical risk reduction, with the potential harms of early menopause and quality of life concerns. Having a test that does not just predict cancer risk but in fact quantifies that risk for the individual would greatly help in these decisions. Furthermore, more than 75% of ovarian cancers occur without a germline mutation. 

Advances in genetic testing technology also have led to the ability to obtain genetic information from a simple blood test. For example, cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which is DNA fragments that are normally found to be circulating in the bloodstream, is routinely used as a screening tool for prenatal genetic testing to detect chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus.⁸ This technology relies on analyzing fetal free (non-cellular) DNA that is naturally found circulating in maternal blood. More recently, similar technology using cfDNA has been applied for the screening and characterization of certain cancers.⁹ This powerful technology can detect cancer before symptoms begin—all from a simple blood test, often referred to as a “liquid biopsy.” However, understanding the utility, supporting data, and target population for these tests is important before employing them as part of routine clinical practice. 

Continue to: Current methods of cancer screening are limited...

Current methods of cancer screening are limited 

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, with nearly 10 million cancer-related deaths annually, and it may surpass cardiovascular disease as the leading cause over the course of the century.^10,11 Many cancer deaths are in part due to late-stage diagnosis, when the cancer has already metastasized.¹² Early detection of cancer improves outcomes and survival rates, but it is often difficult to detect early due to the lack of early symptoms with many cancers, which can limit cancer screening and issues with access to care.¹³

 Currently, there are only 5 cancers: cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung (for high-risk adults) that are screened for in the general population (see "Cancer screening has helped save countless lives" at the end of this article).¹⁴ The Pap test to screen for cervical cancer, developed in the 1940s, has saved millions of women’s lives and reduced the mortality of cervical cancer by 70%.¹⁵ Coupled with the availability and implementation of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, cervical cancer rates are decreasing at substantial rates.¹⁶ However, there are no validated screening tests for uterine cancer, the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, or ovarian cancer, the most lethal. 

Screening tests for cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung cancer have helped save millions of lives; however, these tests also come with high false-positive rates and the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. For example, half of women undergoing mammograms will receive a false-positive result over a 10-year time period,¹⁷ and up to 50% of men undergoing prostate cancer screening have a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result when they do not actually have prostate cancer.¹⁸ Additionally, the positive predictive value of the current standard-of-care screening tests can be as low as <5%. Most diagnoses of cancer are made from a surgical biopsy, but these types of procedures can be difficult depending on the location or size of the tumor.¹⁹ 

The liquid biopsy. Given the limitations of current cancer screening and diagnostic tests, there is a great need for a more sensitive test that also can detect cancer from multiple organ sites. Liquid biopsy-based biomarkers can include circulating tumor cells, exosomes, microRNAs, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). With advances in next-generation sequencing, ctDNA techniques remain the most promising.²⁰ 

Methylation-based MCED testing: A new way of  cancer screening 

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) technology was developed to address the need for better cancer screening and has the potential to detect up to 50 cancers with a simple blood test. This new technology opens the possibility for early detection of multiple cancers before symptoms even begin. MCED testing is sometimes referred to as “GRAIL” testing, after the American biotechnology company that developed the first commercially available MCED test, called the Galleri test (Galleri, Menlo Park, California). Although other biotechnology companies are developing similar technology (Exact Sciences, Madison, Wisconsin, and Freenome, South San Francisco, California, for example), this is the first test of its kind available to the public.²¹

The MCED test works by detecting the cfDNA fragments that are released into the blood passively by necrotic or apoptotic cells or secreted actively from tumor cells. The DNA from tumor cells is also known as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). CtDNA is found in much lower quantities in the blood stream compared with cfDNA from cells, making it difficult to distinguish a cancer versus a noncancer cell and to determine the tumor site of origin.²²

Through innovation, the first example of detecting cancer through this method in fact came as a surprise result from an abnormal cfDNA test. A pregnant 37-yearold woman had a cfDNA result suggestive of aneuploidy for chromosomes 18 and 13; however, she gave birth to a normal male fetus. Shortly thereafter, a vaginal biopsy confirmed small-cell carcinoma with alterations in chromosomes 18 and 13.²³ GRAIL testing for this patient was subsequently able to optimize their methods of detecting both the presence of cancer cells and the tumor site of origin by utilizing next-generation genomic sequencing and methylation. Their development of a methylation-based assay combined with 46 machine-learning allowed the test to determine, first, if there is cancer present or not, and second, the tissue of origin prediction. It is important to note that these tests are meant to be used in addition to standard-of-care screening tests, not as an alternative, and this is emphasized throughout the company’s website and the medical literature.²⁴ 

Continue to: The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test...

The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test includes 4 large clinical trials of more than 180,000 participants, including those with cancer and those without. The Circulating Cell-Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) Study, was a prospective, case-controlled, observational study enrolling approximately 15,000 participants with 3 prespecified sub-studies. The first sub-study developed the machine-learning classifier for both early detection and tumor of origin detection.^25,26 

The highest performing assay from the first sub-study then went on to be further validated in the 2nd and 3rd sub-studies. The 3rd sub-study, published in the Annals of Oncology in 2021 looked at a cohort of 4,077 participants with and without cancer, and found the specificity of cancer signal detection to be 99.5% and the overall sensitivity to be 51.5%, with increasing sensitivity by cancer stage (stage I - 17%, stage II - 40%, stage III - 77%, and stage IV - 90.1%).²⁴ The false-positive rate was low, at 0.7%, and the true positive rate was 88.7%. Notably, the test was able to correctly identify the tumor of origin for 93% of samples.²⁴ The study overall demonstrated high specificity and accuracy of tumor site of origin and supported the use of this blood-based MCED assay. 

The PATHFINDER study was another prospective, multicenter clinical trial that enrolled more than 6,000 participants in the United States. The participants were aged >50 years with or without additional cancer risk factors. The goal of this study was to determine the extent of testing required to achieve diagnosis after a “cancer signal detected” result. The study results found that, when MCED testing was added to the standard-of-care screening, the number of cancers detected doubled when compared with standard cancer screening alone.^27,28 Of the 92 participants with positive cancer signals, 35 were diagnosed with cancer, and 71% of these cancer types did not have standard-ofcare screening. The tumor site of origin was correctly detected in 97% of cases, and there were less than 1% of false positives. Overall, the test led to diagnostic evaluation of 1.4% of patients and a cancer diagnosis in 0.5%. 

Currently, there are 2 ongoing clinical trials to further evaluate the Galleri MCED test. The STRIVE trial that aims to prospectively validate the MCED test in a population of nearly 100,000 women undergoing mammography,²⁹ and the SUMMIT trial,³⁰ which is similarly aiming to validate the test in a group of individuals, half of whom have a significantly elevated risk of lung cancer. 

With the promising results described above, the Galleri test became the first MCED test available for commercial use starting in 2022. It is only available for use in people who are aged 50 and older, have a family history of cancer, or are at an increased risk for cancer (although GRAIL does not elaborate on what constitutes increased risk). However, the Galleri test is only available through prescription—therefore, if interested, patients must ask their health care provider to register with GRAIL and order the test (https://www .galleri.com/hcp/the-galleri-test/ordering). Additionally, the test will cost the patient $949 and is not yet covered by insurances. Currently, several large health care groups such as the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Cleveland Clinic, and Mercy hospitals have partnered with GRAIL to offer their test to certain patients for use as part of clinical trials. Currently, no MCED test, including the Galleri, is approved by the US Food and  Drug Administration. 

Incorporating MCED testing into clinical practice

The Galleri MCED test has promising potential to make multi-cancer screening feasible and obtainable, which could ultimately reduce late-stage cancer diagnosis and decrease mortality from all cancers. The compelling data from large cohorts and numerous clinical trials demonstrate its accuracy, reliability, reproducibility, and specificity. It can detect up to 50 different types of cancers, including cancers that affect our gynecologic patients, including breast, cervical, ovarian, and uterine. Additionally, its novel methylation-based assay accurately identifies the tumor site of origin in 97% of cases.²⁸ Ongoing and future clinical trials will continue to validate and refine these methods and improve the sensitivity and positive-predictive value of this assay. As mentioned, although it has been incorporated into various large health care systems, it is not FDA approved and has not been validated in the general population. Additionally, it should not be used as a replacement for recommended screening. 

CASE Resolved

The patient is eligible for the Galleri MCED test if ordered by her physician. However, she will need to pay for the test out-of-pocket. Due to her family history, she should consider germline genetic testing (either for herself, or if possible, for her father, who should meet criteria based on his prostate cancer).³ Panel testing for germline mutations has become much more accessible, and until MCED testing is ready for prime time, it remains one of the best ways to predict and prevent cancers. Additionally, she should continue to undergo routine screening for cervical, breast, and colon cancer as indicated. ●

CASE Patient inquires about new technology to detect cancer

A 51-year-old woman (para 2) presents to your clinic for a routine gynecology exam. She is up to date on her screening mammogram and Pap testing. She has her first colonoscopy scheduled for next month. She has a 10-year remote smoking history, but she stopped smoking in her late twenties. Her cousin was recently diagnosed with skin cancer, her father had prostate cancer and is now in remission, and her paternal grandmother died of ovarian cancer. She knows ovarian cancer does not have an effective screening test, and she recently heard on the news about a new blood test that can detect cancer before symptoms start. She would like to know more about this test. Could it replace her next Pap, mammogram, and future colonoscopies? She also wants to know—How can a simple blood test detect cancer?

The power of genomics in cancer care

Since the first human genome was sequenced in 2000, the power of genomics has been evident across many aspects of medicine, including cancer care.¹ Whereas the first human genome to be sequenced took more than 10 years to sequence and cost over  $1 billion, sequencing of your entire genome can now be obtained for less than $400—with results in a week.²

Genomics is now an integral part of cancer care, with results having implications for both cancer risk and prevention as well as more individualized treatment. For example, a healthy 42-year-old patient with a strong family history of breast cancer may undergo genetic testing and discover she has a mutation in the tumor suppression gene BRCA1, which carries a 39% to 58% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer.³ By undergoing a risk-reducing bilateral salpingooophorectomy she will lower her ovarian cancer risk by up to 96%.^4,5 A 67-year-old with a new diagnosis of stage III ovarian cancer and a BRCA2 mutation may be in remission for 5+ years due to her BRCA2 mutation, which makes her eligible for the use of the poly(ADPribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib.⁶ Genetic testing as illustrated above has led to decreased cancer-related mortality and prolonged survival.⁷ However, many women with such germline mutations are faced with difficult choices about surgical risk reduction, with the potential harms of early menopause and quality of life concerns. Having a test that does not just predict cancer risk but in fact quantifies that risk for the individual would greatly help in these decisions. Furthermore, more than 75% of ovarian cancers occur without a germline mutation. 

Advances in genetic testing technology also have led to the ability to obtain genetic information from a simple blood test. For example, cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which is DNA fragments that are normally found to be circulating in the bloodstream, is routinely used as a screening tool for prenatal genetic testing to detect chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus.⁸ This technology relies on analyzing fetal free (non-cellular) DNA that is naturally found circulating in maternal blood. More recently, similar technology using cfDNA has been applied for the screening and characterization of certain cancers.⁹ This powerful technology can detect cancer before symptoms begin—all from a simple blood test, often referred to as a “liquid biopsy.” However, understanding the utility, supporting data, and target population for these tests is important before employing them as part of routine clinical practice. 

Continue to: Current methods of cancer screening are limited...

Current methods of cancer screening are limited 

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, with nearly 10 million cancer-related deaths annually, and it may surpass cardiovascular disease as the leading cause over the course of the century.^10,11 Many cancer deaths are in part due to late-stage diagnosis, when the cancer has already metastasized.¹² Early detection of cancer improves outcomes and survival rates, but it is often difficult to detect early due to the lack of early symptoms with many cancers, which can limit cancer screening and issues with access to care.¹³

 Currently, there are only 5 cancers: cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung (for high-risk adults) that are screened for in the general population (see "Cancer screening has helped save countless lives" at the end of this article).¹⁴ The Pap test to screen for cervical cancer, developed in the 1940s, has saved millions of women’s lives and reduced the mortality of cervical cancer by 70%.¹⁵ Coupled with the availability and implementation of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, cervical cancer rates are decreasing at substantial rates.¹⁶ However, there are no validated screening tests for uterine cancer, the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, or ovarian cancer, the most lethal. 

Screening tests for cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung cancer have helped save millions of lives; however, these tests also come with high false-positive rates and the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. For example, half of women undergoing mammograms will receive a false-positive result over a 10-year time period,¹⁷ and up to 50% of men undergoing prostate cancer screening have a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result when they do not actually have prostate cancer.¹⁸ Additionally, the positive predictive value of the current standard-of-care screening tests can be as low as <5%. Most diagnoses of cancer are made from a surgical biopsy, but these types of procedures can be difficult depending on the location or size of the tumor.¹⁹ 

The liquid biopsy. Given the limitations of current cancer screening and diagnostic tests, there is a great need for a more sensitive test that also can detect cancer from multiple organ sites. Liquid biopsy-based biomarkers can include circulating tumor cells, exosomes, microRNAs, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). With advances in next-generation sequencing, ctDNA techniques remain the most promising.²⁰ 

Methylation-based MCED testing: A new way of  cancer screening 

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) technology was developed to address the need for better cancer screening and has the potential to detect up to 50 cancers with a simple blood test. This new technology opens the possibility for early detection of multiple cancers before symptoms even begin. MCED testing is sometimes referred to as “GRAIL” testing, after the American biotechnology company that developed the first commercially available MCED test, called the Galleri test (Galleri, Menlo Park, California). Although other biotechnology companies are developing similar technology (Exact Sciences, Madison, Wisconsin, and Freenome, South San Francisco, California, for example), this is the first test of its kind available to the public.²¹

The MCED test works by detecting the cfDNA fragments that are released into the blood passively by necrotic or apoptotic cells or secreted actively from tumor cells. The DNA from tumor cells is also known as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). CtDNA is found in much lower quantities in the blood stream compared with cfDNA from cells, making it difficult to distinguish a cancer versus a noncancer cell and to determine the tumor site of origin.²²

Through innovation, the first example of detecting cancer through this method in fact came as a surprise result from an abnormal cfDNA test. A pregnant 37-yearold woman had a cfDNA result suggestive of aneuploidy for chromosomes 18 and 13; however, she gave birth to a normal male fetus. Shortly thereafter, a vaginal biopsy confirmed small-cell carcinoma with alterations in chromosomes 18 and 13.²³ GRAIL testing for this patient was subsequently able to optimize their methods of detecting both the presence of cancer cells and the tumor site of origin by utilizing next-generation genomic sequencing and methylation. Their development of a methylation-based assay combined with 46 machine-learning allowed the test to determine, first, if there is cancer present or not, and second, the tissue of origin prediction. It is important to note that these tests are meant to be used in addition to standard-of-care screening tests, not as an alternative, and this is emphasized throughout the company’s website and the medical literature.²⁴ 

Continue to: The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test...

The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test includes 4 large clinical trials of more than 180,000 participants, including those with cancer and those without. The Circulating Cell-Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) Study, was a prospective, case-controlled, observational study enrolling approximately 15,000 participants with 3 prespecified sub-studies. The first sub-study developed the machine-learning classifier for both early detection and tumor of origin detection.^25,26 

The highest performing assay from the first sub-study then went on to be further validated in the 2nd and 3rd sub-studies. The 3rd sub-study, published in the Annals of Oncology in 2021 looked at a cohort of 4,077 participants with and without cancer, and found the specificity of cancer signal detection to be 99.5% and the overall sensitivity to be 51.5%, with increasing sensitivity by cancer stage (stage I - 17%, stage II - 40%, stage III - 77%, and stage IV - 90.1%).²⁴ The false-positive rate was low, at 0.7%, and the true positive rate was 88.7%. Notably, the test was able to correctly identify the tumor of origin for 93% of samples.²⁴ The study overall demonstrated high specificity and accuracy of tumor site of origin and supported the use of this blood-based MCED assay. 

The PATHFINDER study was another prospective, multicenter clinical trial that enrolled more than 6,000 participants in the United States. The participants were aged >50 years with or without additional cancer risk factors. The goal of this study was to determine the extent of testing required to achieve diagnosis after a “cancer signal detected” result. The study results found that, when MCED testing was added to the standard-of-care screening, the number of cancers detected doubled when compared with standard cancer screening alone.^27,28 Of the 92 participants with positive cancer signals, 35 were diagnosed with cancer, and 71% of these cancer types did not have standard-ofcare screening. The tumor site of origin was correctly detected in 97% of cases, and there were less than 1% of false positives. Overall, the test led to diagnostic evaluation of 1.4% of patients and a cancer diagnosis in 0.5%. 

Currently, there are 2 ongoing clinical trials to further evaluate the Galleri MCED test. The STRIVE trial that aims to prospectively validate the MCED test in a population of nearly 100,000 women undergoing mammography,²⁹ and the SUMMIT trial,³⁰ which is similarly aiming to validate the test in a group of individuals, half of whom have a significantly elevated risk of lung cancer. 

With the promising results described above, the Galleri test became the first MCED test available for commercial use starting in 2022. It is only available for use in people who are aged 50 and older, have a family history of cancer, or are at an increased risk for cancer (although GRAIL does not elaborate on what constitutes increased risk). However, the Galleri test is only available through prescription—therefore, if interested, patients must ask their health care provider to register with GRAIL and order the test (https://www .galleri.com/hcp/the-galleri-test/ordering). Additionally, the test will cost the patient $949 and is not yet covered by insurances. Currently, several large health care groups such as the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Cleveland Clinic, and Mercy hospitals have partnered with GRAIL to offer their test to certain patients for use as part of clinical trials. Currently, no MCED test, including the Galleri, is approved by the US Food and  Drug Administration. 

Incorporating MCED testing into clinical practice

The Galleri MCED test has promising potential to make multi-cancer screening feasible and obtainable, which could ultimately reduce late-stage cancer diagnosis and decrease mortality from all cancers. The compelling data from large cohorts and numerous clinical trials demonstrate its accuracy, reliability, reproducibility, and specificity. It can detect up to 50 different types of cancers, including cancers that affect our gynecologic patients, including breast, cervical, ovarian, and uterine. Additionally, its novel methylation-based assay accurately identifies the tumor site of origin in 97% of cases.²⁸ Ongoing and future clinical trials will continue to validate and refine these methods and improve the sensitivity and positive-predictive value of this assay. As mentioned, although it has been incorporated into various large health care systems, it is not FDA approved and has not been validated in the general population. Additionally, it should not be used as a replacement for recommended screening. 

CASE Resolved

The patient is eligible for the Galleri MCED test if ordered by her physician. However, she will need to pay for the test out-of-pocket. Due to her family history, she should consider germline genetic testing (either for herself, or if possible, for her father, who should meet criteria based on his prostate cancer).³ Panel testing for germline mutations has become much more accessible, and until MCED testing is ready for prime time, it remains one of the best ways to predict and prevent cancers. Additionally, she should continue to undergo routine screening for cervical, breast, and colon cancer as indicated. ●

CASE Patient inquires about new technology to detect cancer

A 51-year-old woman (para 2) presents to your clinic for a routine gynecology exam. She is up to date on her screening mammogram and Pap testing. She has her first colonoscopy scheduled for next month. She has a 10-year remote smoking history, but she stopped smoking in her late twenties. Her cousin was recently diagnosed with skin cancer, her father had prostate cancer and is now in remission, and her paternal grandmother died of ovarian cancer. She knows ovarian cancer does not have an effective screening test, and she recently heard on the news about a new blood test that can detect cancer before symptoms start. She would like to know more about this test. Could it replace her next Pap, mammogram, and future colonoscopies? She also wants to know—How can a simple blood test detect cancer?

The power of genomics in cancer care

Since the first human genome was sequenced in 2000, the power of genomics has been evident across many aspects of medicine, including cancer care.¹ Whereas the first human genome to be sequenced took more than 10 years to sequence and cost over  $1 billion, sequencing of your entire genome can now be obtained for less than $400—with results in a week.²

Genomics is now an integral part of cancer care, with results having implications for both cancer risk and prevention as well as more individualized treatment. For example, a healthy 42-year-old patient with a strong family history of breast cancer may undergo genetic testing and discover she has a mutation in the tumor suppression gene BRCA1, which carries a 39% to 58% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer.³ By undergoing a risk-reducing bilateral salpingooophorectomy she will lower her ovarian cancer risk by up to 96%.^4,5 A 67-year-old with a new diagnosis of stage III ovarian cancer and a BRCA2 mutation may be in remission for 5+ years due to her BRCA2 mutation, which makes her eligible for the use of the poly(ADPribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib.⁶ Genetic testing as illustrated above has led to decreased cancer-related mortality and prolonged survival.⁷ However, many women with such germline mutations are faced with difficult choices about surgical risk reduction, with the potential harms of early menopause and quality of life concerns. Having a test that does not just predict cancer risk but in fact quantifies that risk for the individual would greatly help in these decisions. Furthermore, more than 75% of ovarian cancers occur without a germline mutation. 

Advances in genetic testing technology also have led to the ability to obtain genetic information from a simple blood test. For example, cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which is DNA fragments that are normally found to be circulating in the bloodstream, is routinely used as a screening tool for prenatal genetic testing to detect chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus.⁸ This technology relies on analyzing fetal free (non-cellular) DNA that is naturally found circulating in maternal blood. More recently, similar technology using cfDNA has been applied for the screening and characterization of certain cancers.⁹ This powerful technology can detect cancer before symptoms begin—all from a simple blood test, often referred to as a “liquid biopsy.” However, understanding the utility, supporting data, and target population for these tests is important before employing them as part of routine clinical practice. 

Continue to: Current methods of cancer screening are limited...

Current methods of cancer screening are limited 

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, with nearly 10 million cancer-related deaths annually, and it may surpass cardiovascular disease as the leading cause over the course of the century.^10,11 Many cancer deaths are in part due to late-stage diagnosis, when the cancer has already metastasized.¹² Early detection of cancer improves outcomes and survival rates, but it is often difficult to detect early due to the lack of early symptoms with many cancers, which can limit cancer screening and issues with access to care.¹³

 Currently, there are only 5 cancers: cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung (for high-risk adults) that are screened for in the general population (see "Cancer screening has helped save countless lives" at the end of this article).¹⁴ The Pap test to screen for cervical cancer, developed in the 1940s, has saved millions of women’s lives and reduced the mortality of cervical cancer by 70%.¹⁵ Coupled with the availability and implementation of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, cervical cancer rates are decreasing at substantial rates.¹⁶ However, there are no validated screening tests for uterine cancer, the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, or ovarian cancer, the most lethal. 

Screening tests for cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung cancer have helped save millions of lives; however, these tests also come with high false-positive rates and the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. For example, half of women undergoing mammograms will receive a false-positive result over a 10-year time period,¹⁷ and up to 50% of men undergoing prostate cancer screening have a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result when they do not actually have prostate cancer.¹⁸ Additionally, the positive predictive value of the current standard-of-care screening tests can be as low as <5%. Most diagnoses of cancer are made from a surgical biopsy, but these types of procedures can be difficult depending on the location or size of the tumor.¹⁹ 

The liquid biopsy. Given the limitations of current cancer screening and diagnostic tests, there is a great need for a more sensitive test that also can detect cancer from multiple organ sites. Liquid biopsy-based biomarkers can include circulating tumor cells, exosomes, microRNAs, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). With advances in next-generation sequencing, ctDNA techniques remain the most promising.²⁰ 

Methylation-based MCED testing: A new way of  cancer screening 

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) technology was developed to address the need for better cancer screening and has the potential to detect up to 50 cancers with a simple blood test. This new technology opens the possibility for early detection of multiple cancers before symptoms even begin. MCED testing is sometimes referred to as “GRAIL” testing, after the American biotechnology company that developed the first commercially available MCED test, called the Galleri test (Galleri, Menlo Park, California). Although other biotechnology companies are developing similar technology (Exact Sciences, Madison, Wisconsin, and Freenome, South San Francisco, California, for example), this is the first test of its kind available to the public.²¹

The MCED test works by detecting the cfDNA fragments that are released into the blood passively by necrotic or apoptotic cells or secreted actively from tumor cells. The DNA from tumor cells is also known as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). CtDNA is found in much lower quantities in the blood stream compared with cfDNA from cells, making it difficult to distinguish a cancer versus a noncancer cell and to determine the tumor site of origin.²²

Through innovation, the first example of detecting cancer through this method in fact came as a surprise result from an abnormal cfDNA test. A pregnant 37-yearold woman had a cfDNA result suggestive of aneuploidy for chromosomes 18 and 13; however, she gave birth to a normal male fetus. Shortly thereafter, a vaginal biopsy confirmed small-cell carcinoma with alterations in chromosomes 18 and 13.²³ GRAIL testing for this patient was subsequently able to optimize their methods of detecting both the presence of cancer cells and the tumor site of origin by utilizing next-generation genomic sequencing and methylation. Their development of a methylation-based assay combined with 46 machine-learning allowed the test to determine, first, if there is cancer present or not, and second, the tissue of origin prediction. It is important to note that these tests are meant to be used in addition to standard-of-care screening tests, not as an alternative, and this is emphasized throughout the company’s website and the medical literature.²⁴ 

Continue to: The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test...

The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test includes 4 large clinical trials of more than 180,000 participants, including those with cancer and those without. The Circulating Cell-Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) Study, was a prospective, case-controlled, observational study enrolling approximately 15,000 participants with 3 prespecified sub-studies. The first sub-study developed the machine-learning classifier for both early detection and tumor of origin detection.^25,26 

The highest performing assay from the first sub-study then went on to be further validated in the 2nd and 3rd sub-studies. The 3rd sub-study, published in the Annals of Oncology in 2021 looked at a cohort of 4,077 participants with and without cancer, and found the specificity of cancer signal detection to be 99.5% and the overall sensitivity to be 51.5%, with increasing sensitivity by cancer stage (stage I - 17%, stage II - 40%, stage III - 77%, and stage IV - 90.1%).²⁴ The false-positive rate was low, at 0.7%, and the true positive rate was 88.7%. Notably, the test was able to correctly identify the tumor of origin for 93% of samples.²⁴ The study overall demonstrated high specificity and accuracy of tumor site of origin and supported the use of this blood-based MCED assay. 

The PATHFINDER study was another prospective, multicenter clinical trial that enrolled more than 6,000 participants in the United States. The participants were aged >50 years with or without additional cancer risk factors. The goal of this study was to determine the extent of testing required to achieve diagnosis after a “cancer signal detected” result. The study results found that, when MCED testing was added to the standard-of-care screening, the number of cancers detected doubled when compared with standard cancer screening alone.^27,28 Of the 92 participants with positive cancer signals, 35 were diagnosed with cancer, and 71% of these cancer types did not have standard-ofcare screening. The tumor site of origin was correctly detected in 97% of cases, and there were less than 1% of false positives. Overall, the test led to diagnostic evaluation of 1.4% of patients and a cancer diagnosis in 0.5%. 

Currently, there are 2 ongoing clinical trials to further evaluate the Galleri MCED test. The STRIVE trial that aims to prospectively validate the MCED test in a population of nearly 100,000 women undergoing mammography,²⁹ and the SUMMIT trial,³⁰ which is similarly aiming to validate the test in a group of individuals, half of whom have a significantly elevated risk of lung cancer. 

With the promising results described above, the Galleri test became the first MCED test available for commercial use starting in 2022. It is only available for use in people who are aged 50 and older, have a family history of cancer, or are at an increased risk for cancer (although GRAIL does not elaborate on what constitutes increased risk). However, the Galleri test is only available through prescription—therefore, if interested, patients must ask their health care provider to register with GRAIL and order the test (https://www .galleri.com/hcp/the-galleri-test/ordering). Additionally, the test will cost the patient $949 and is not yet covered by insurances. Currently, several large health care groups such as the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Cleveland Clinic, and Mercy hospitals have partnered with GRAIL to offer their test to certain patients for use as part of clinical trials. Currently, no MCED test, including the Galleri, is approved by the US Food and  Drug Administration. 

Incorporating MCED testing into clinical practice

The Galleri MCED test has promising potential to make multi-cancer screening feasible and obtainable, which could ultimately reduce late-stage cancer diagnosis and decrease mortality from all cancers. The compelling data from large cohorts and numerous clinical trials demonstrate its accuracy, reliability, reproducibility, and specificity. It can detect up to 50 different types of cancers, including cancers that affect our gynecologic patients, including breast, cervical, ovarian, and uterine. Additionally, its novel methylation-based assay accurately identifies the tumor site of origin in 97% of cases.²⁸ Ongoing and future clinical trials will continue to validate and refine these methods and improve the sensitivity and positive-predictive value of this assay. As mentioned, although it has been incorporated into various large health care systems, it is not FDA approved and has not been validated in the general population. Additionally, it should not be used as a replacement for recommended screening. 

CASE Resolved

The patient is eligible for the Galleri MCED test if ordered by her physician. However, she will need to pay for the test out-of-pocket. Due to her family history, she should consider germline genetic testing (either for herself, or if possible, for her father, who should meet criteria based on his prostate cancer).³ Panel testing for germline mutations has become much more accessible, and until MCED testing is ready for prime time, it remains one of the best ways to predict and prevent cancers. Additionally, she should continue to undergo routine screening for cervical, breast, and colon cancer as indicated. ●