User login
Analysis affirms that giving birth protects against endometrial cancer
Compared with having no children, the risk reduction for endometrial cancer was 21% with having one child, 38% with having two, and 51% with having three, Gunn-Helen Moen, MSc, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland Institute for Molecular Bioscience in St. Lucia, Australia, and the senior author of the study, said in an email.
In the United States, the prevalence of endometrial cancer is 25.7 per 100,000 women per year, with a lifetime risk of 2.8%.
Multiple observational studies have linked giving birth to risk of endometrial cancer. For the new study, Dr. Moen and her team assessed various risk factors related to ovulation and reproductive function using Mendelian randomization, an epidemiological technique that deploys genetic variants to detect cause-and-effect relationships between potentially modifiable risk factors and health outcomes in observational data.
The researcher published their findings in BMC Medicine.
Leverage genetic data
The study used detailed genetic and health data from the UK Biobank, a databank with more than half a million participants. Genetic variants related to some of the risk factors were used to assess whether the variants make people more likely to develop endometrial cancer.
Genomewide significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to number of live births, age at menopause and menarche, and body mass index (BMI) had been identified in previous studies, the researchers reported. They conducted genomewide association analyses of the databank to identify SNPs associated with years ovulating, years using the contraceptive pill, and age at last live birth.
The MR analysis showed a potential causal effect for the number of live births (inverse variance–weighted odds ratio, 0.537) and number of years ovulating (IVW OR, 1.051), in addition to known risk factors of BMI, age at menarche, and age at menopause.
A further multivariable MR analysis showed that number of births had a negative causal effect on endometrial cancer risk (OR, 0.783), independent of the causal effect of known risk factors such as BMI, age at menarche and age at menopause.
Reported limitations included being unable to perform MR analyses on some factors, such as oral contraceptive use, because of a lack of valid genetic instruments. The researchers could not perform an age adjustment at diagnosis because of a lack of data.
In addition, the genetic data came exclusively from White women of European ancestry.
‘A personal choice’
Other investigators have hypothesized that the protective effect of childbirth may be caused by shedding of malignant and premalignant endometrial cells during and after childbirth and exposure to high levels of progesterone in late stages of pregnancy, the research team noted.
Dr. Moen said, based on the results, physicians might consider number of childbirths in assessing a patient’s risk of endometrial cancer.
However, Britton Trabert, MSPH, MS, PhD, an epidemiologist and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said it’s unlikely the findings will affect clinical practice given that they “largely replicate well-characterized endometrial cancer risk associations.”
“Pregnancy and childbirth are a personal choice and is not largely regarded as a modifiable factor for cancer prevention,” said Dr. Trabert, who was not involved in the study.
The study’s investigators reported funding from the governments of Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom and the British Heart Foundation. No financial conflicts of interest were reported. Dr. Trabert reported no relevant financial interests.
Compared with having no children, the risk reduction for endometrial cancer was 21% with having one child, 38% with having two, and 51% with having three, Gunn-Helen Moen, MSc, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland Institute for Molecular Bioscience in St. Lucia, Australia, and the senior author of the study, said in an email.
In the United States, the prevalence of endometrial cancer is 25.7 per 100,000 women per year, with a lifetime risk of 2.8%.
Multiple observational studies have linked giving birth to risk of endometrial cancer. For the new study, Dr. Moen and her team assessed various risk factors related to ovulation and reproductive function using Mendelian randomization, an epidemiological technique that deploys genetic variants to detect cause-and-effect relationships between potentially modifiable risk factors and health outcomes in observational data.
The researcher published their findings in BMC Medicine.
Leverage genetic data
The study used detailed genetic and health data from the UK Biobank, a databank with more than half a million participants. Genetic variants related to some of the risk factors were used to assess whether the variants make people more likely to develop endometrial cancer.
Genomewide significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to number of live births, age at menopause and menarche, and body mass index (BMI) had been identified in previous studies, the researchers reported. They conducted genomewide association analyses of the databank to identify SNPs associated with years ovulating, years using the contraceptive pill, and age at last live birth.
The MR analysis showed a potential causal effect for the number of live births (inverse variance–weighted odds ratio, 0.537) and number of years ovulating (IVW OR, 1.051), in addition to known risk factors of BMI, age at menarche, and age at menopause.
A further multivariable MR analysis showed that number of births had a negative causal effect on endometrial cancer risk (OR, 0.783), independent of the causal effect of known risk factors such as BMI, age at menarche and age at menopause.
Reported limitations included being unable to perform MR analyses on some factors, such as oral contraceptive use, because of a lack of valid genetic instruments. The researchers could not perform an age adjustment at diagnosis because of a lack of data.
In addition, the genetic data came exclusively from White women of European ancestry.
‘A personal choice’
Other investigators have hypothesized that the protective effect of childbirth may be caused by shedding of malignant and premalignant endometrial cells during and after childbirth and exposure to high levels of progesterone in late stages of pregnancy, the research team noted.
Dr. Moen said, based on the results, physicians might consider number of childbirths in assessing a patient’s risk of endometrial cancer.
However, Britton Trabert, MSPH, MS, PhD, an epidemiologist and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said it’s unlikely the findings will affect clinical practice given that they “largely replicate well-characterized endometrial cancer risk associations.”
“Pregnancy and childbirth are a personal choice and is not largely regarded as a modifiable factor for cancer prevention,” said Dr. Trabert, who was not involved in the study.
The study’s investigators reported funding from the governments of Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom and the British Heart Foundation. No financial conflicts of interest were reported. Dr. Trabert reported no relevant financial interests.
Compared with having no children, the risk reduction for endometrial cancer was 21% with having one child, 38% with having two, and 51% with having three, Gunn-Helen Moen, MSc, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland Institute for Molecular Bioscience in St. Lucia, Australia, and the senior author of the study, said in an email.
In the United States, the prevalence of endometrial cancer is 25.7 per 100,000 women per year, with a lifetime risk of 2.8%.
Multiple observational studies have linked giving birth to risk of endometrial cancer. For the new study, Dr. Moen and her team assessed various risk factors related to ovulation and reproductive function using Mendelian randomization, an epidemiological technique that deploys genetic variants to detect cause-and-effect relationships between potentially modifiable risk factors and health outcomes in observational data.
The researcher published their findings in BMC Medicine.
Leverage genetic data
The study used detailed genetic and health data from the UK Biobank, a databank with more than half a million participants. Genetic variants related to some of the risk factors were used to assess whether the variants make people more likely to develop endometrial cancer.
Genomewide significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to number of live births, age at menopause and menarche, and body mass index (BMI) had been identified in previous studies, the researchers reported. They conducted genomewide association analyses of the databank to identify SNPs associated with years ovulating, years using the contraceptive pill, and age at last live birth.
The MR analysis showed a potential causal effect for the number of live births (inverse variance–weighted odds ratio, 0.537) and number of years ovulating (IVW OR, 1.051), in addition to known risk factors of BMI, age at menarche, and age at menopause.
A further multivariable MR analysis showed that number of births had a negative causal effect on endometrial cancer risk (OR, 0.783), independent of the causal effect of known risk factors such as BMI, age at menarche and age at menopause.
Reported limitations included being unable to perform MR analyses on some factors, such as oral contraceptive use, because of a lack of valid genetic instruments. The researchers could not perform an age adjustment at diagnosis because of a lack of data.
In addition, the genetic data came exclusively from White women of European ancestry.
‘A personal choice’
Other investigators have hypothesized that the protective effect of childbirth may be caused by shedding of malignant and premalignant endometrial cells during and after childbirth and exposure to high levels of progesterone in late stages of pregnancy, the research team noted.
Dr. Moen said, based on the results, physicians might consider number of childbirths in assessing a patient’s risk of endometrial cancer.
However, Britton Trabert, MSPH, MS, PhD, an epidemiologist and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said it’s unlikely the findings will affect clinical practice given that they “largely replicate well-characterized endometrial cancer risk associations.”
“Pregnancy and childbirth are a personal choice and is not largely regarded as a modifiable factor for cancer prevention,” said Dr. Trabert, who was not involved in the study.
The study’s investigators reported funding from the governments of Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom and the British Heart Foundation. No financial conflicts of interest were reported. Dr. Trabert reported no relevant financial interests.
FROM BMC MEDICINE
How AI is, or will soon be, relevant in radiation oncology
Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that
In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.
Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.
He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.
He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.
Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
AI in pathology and treatment selection
In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.
The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.
That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.
Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.
No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.
Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.
This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”
Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”
Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.
* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that
In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.
Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.
He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.
He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.
Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
AI in pathology and treatment selection
In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.
The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.
That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.
Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.
No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.
Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.
This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”
Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”
Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.
* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that
In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.
Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.
He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.
He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.
Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
AI in pathology and treatment selection
In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.
The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.
That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.
Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.
No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.
Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.
This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”
Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”
Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.
* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.
FROM ASTRO 2022
Chronic stress, especially race related, may hasten cancer death
The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.
It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.
To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.
Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”
In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.
In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.
After adjustment, the (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.
Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.
The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.
It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.
To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.
Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”
In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.
In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.
After adjustment, the (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.
Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.
The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.
It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.
To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.
Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”
In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.
In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.
After adjustment, the (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.
Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM SSM–POPULATION HEALTH
Third COVID booster benefits cancer patients
though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.
People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.
The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.
Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.
Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.
The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.
“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.
Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.
The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.
The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).
Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).
Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).
Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.
though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.
People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.
The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.
Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.
Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.
The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.
“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.
Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.
The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.
The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).
Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).
Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).
Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.
though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.
People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.
The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.
Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.
Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.
The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.
“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.
Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.
The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.
The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).
Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).
Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).
Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
Promising new antibiotic emerges for treating UTIs
A new antibiotic for urinary tract infections is heading toward government approval.
It would be the first new treatment in 20 years for UTIs, which affect more than half of women at least sometime in their lives, according to data compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Called Gepotidacin, the antibiotic’s trial has halted enrollment early due to excellent effectiveness and safety results thus far, drugmaker GSK announced in a press release Nov. 3. GSK will seek approval and peer-reviewed publication early next year.
There is a need for new antibiotics such as this because of increasing antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance to bacteria has become so prevalent that the World Health Organization recently began publishing a list of bacteria that pose the greatest public health threats.
“It’s definitely a big deal,” Cindy Liu, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University, told CNN.
However, antibiotics are not a particularly profitable type of drug, The Wall Street Journal reported. The newspaper noted that they need to be used sparingly to limit resistance, and the cheapest option is usually prescribed. Some small companies that make antibiotics have even gone bankrupt recently, the Journal noted.
The U.S. government has invested in GSK’s development of Gepotidacin. The company predicts the drug could be a “blockbuster” and earn more than $1 billion due to UTI resistance to other drugs, the Journal reported.
“I think it will be really interesting and important to the field to see both how the drug companies sort of market this product and sort of how it does,” Dr. Liu said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new antibiotic for urinary tract infections is heading toward government approval.
It would be the first new treatment in 20 years for UTIs, which affect more than half of women at least sometime in their lives, according to data compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Called Gepotidacin, the antibiotic’s trial has halted enrollment early due to excellent effectiveness and safety results thus far, drugmaker GSK announced in a press release Nov. 3. GSK will seek approval and peer-reviewed publication early next year.
There is a need for new antibiotics such as this because of increasing antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance to bacteria has become so prevalent that the World Health Organization recently began publishing a list of bacteria that pose the greatest public health threats.
“It’s definitely a big deal,” Cindy Liu, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University, told CNN.
However, antibiotics are not a particularly profitable type of drug, The Wall Street Journal reported. The newspaper noted that they need to be used sparingly to limit resistance, and the cheapest option is usually prescribed. Some small companies that make antibiotics have even gone bankrupt recently, the Journal noted.
The U.S. government has invested in GSK’s development of Gepotidacin. The company predicts the drug could be a “blockbuster” and earn more than $1 billion due to UTI resistance to other drugs, the Journal reported.
“I think it will be really interesting and important to the field to see both how the drug companies sort of market this product and sort of how it does,” Dr. Liu said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new antibiotic for urinary tract infections is heading toward government approval.
It would be the first new treatment in 20 years for UTIs, which affect more than half of women at least sometime in their lives, according to data compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Called Gepotidacin, the antibiotic’s trial has halted enrollment early due to excellent effectiveness and safety results thus far, drugmaker GSK announced in a press release Nov. 3. GSK will seek approval and peer-reviewed publication early next year.
There is a need for new antibiotics such as this because of increasing antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance to bacteria has become so prevalent that the World Health Organization recently began publishing a list of bacteria that pose the greatest public health threats.
“It’s definitely a big deal,” Cindy Liu, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University, told CNN.
However, antibiotics are not a particularly profitable type of drug, The Wall Street Journal reported. The newspaper noted that they need to be used sparingly to limit resistance, and the cheapest option is usually prescribed. Some small companies that make antibiotics have even gone bankrupt recently, the Journal noted.
The U.S. government has invested in GSK’s development of Gepotidacin. The company predicts the drug could be a “blockbuster” and earn more than $1 billion due to UTI resistance to other drugs, the Journal reported.
“I think it will be really interesting and important to the field to see both how the drug companies sort of market this product and sort of how it does,” Dr. Liu said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HPV vaccine effectiveness dependent on age at receipt
The effectiveness of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18 is highly dependent on the age at which it is given. Prevalence rates have been shown to be significantly lower among girls who are vaccinated at the recommended ages of 9-12 years, compared with those who are vaccinated after their sexual debut, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate.
“HPV vaccination does not have any therapeutic effect on HPV infections already acquired, which is more likely to explain the difference in prevalence between predebut versus postdebut recipients than a lower immune response [among older recipients],” lead study author Didem Egemen, PhD, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., told this news organization in an email.
“Still, among older females, the immune response of the vaccine is likely to still be quite strong, and we would encourage vaccination [of female patients] if unvaccinated, as our paper showed that vaccination post debut will still reduce HPV 16/18 prevalence by half,” she added.
The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
National sample evaluated
Using data from NHANES, a biennial, cross-sectional sample (cycles 2011 through 2018), the researchers identified female persons who were aged 26 years or younger in 2006, when HPV vaccination was introduced, and who were eligible for routine vaccination or “catch-up” vaccination (given between the ages of 13 and 26 years), as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The investigators then compared the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 among unvaccinated female patients, female patients who had been vaccinated prior to their sexual debut (predebut group), and those who had been vaccinated after their sexual debut (postdebut group).
They also estimated vaccine uptake among those who were eligible for routine vaccination, as well as the proportion of vaccinated female patients with respect to racial and ethnic subgroups.
In the overall cohort, the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 decreased by 6% (95% confidence interval, 4%-7%) in the unvaccinated group to 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) in the postdebut group and to less than 1% (95% CI, <1%-1%) in the predebut group, Dr. Egemen and colleagues report.
In real percentages, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was 89% lower in the predebut group (P < .001) but only 41% lower in the postdebut group (P = .29) compared with unvaccinated female patients. And compared with female patients who were vaccinated after their sexual debut, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was reduced by 82% among those who had received the vaccine at the recommended ages of 9-12 years (P = .08).
In the current study, Dr. Egeman acknowledged that only 38% of ever-eligible female patients received the vaccine, although the prevalence increased to 56% when only female patients who were eligible for routine vaccination were taken into account. On the other hand, only 21% (95% CI, 14%-28%) of female patients eligible for routine vaccination received their first dose by age 12 years.
Indeed, the mean age on receipt of the first vaccination dose was 14.5 years (95% CI, 14.1-14.8 years), the authors note, and only 59% of girls received their first dose prior to their sexual debut. Additionally, among routine vaccination–eligible girls aged 12 years or younger in 2006, 33% were vaccinated before and 23% after their sexual debut, and the rest were not vaccinated.
Interestingly, differences in the age at which the HPV vaccine was received by race and ethnicity were negligible, the investigators point out.
Vaccination rates increasing
Asked to comment on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University, Boston Medical Center, pointed out that the investigators evaluated data from 2011 to 2018. “We know that HPV vaccination rates have increased over that period and continue to increase,” she emphasized in an email to this news organization.
Physicians also know that more persons are being vaccinated between the ages of 9 and 12 than was the case at the beginning of this study. “This is good news,” she said, “as it means that more adolescents now in 2022 are benefiting fully from vaccination than they were in 2011,” she added.
At the same time, Dr. Perkins acknowledged that many persons are still missing out on the chance to receive the vaccine on time – which means they are missing out on the chance to prevent cancer.
“Making sure that all adolescents receive vaccination between the ages of 9 to 12 has the potential to prevent up to 40,000 cancers every year in the U.S., [including] the most common HPV-related cancers, such as cervical cancer in women and tongue and tonsillar cancer in men,” Dr. Perkins noted.
“Thus, it’s critical that doctors and parents get the message that you can’t vaccinate too early, only too late,” she emphasized.
Dr. Edgman and Dr. Perkins report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The effectiveness of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18 is highly dependent on the age at which it is given. Prevalence rates have been shown to be significantly lower among girls who are vaccinated at the recommended ages of 9-12 years, compared with those who are vaccinated after their sexual debut, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate.
“HPV vaccination does not have any therapeutic effect on HPV infections already acquired, which is more likely to explain the difference in prevalence between predebut versus postdebut recipients than a lower immune response [among older recipients],” lead study author Didem Egemen, PhD, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., told this news organization in an email.
“Still, among older females, the immune response of the vaccine is likely to still be quite strong, and we would encourage vaccination [of female patients] if unvaccinated, as our paper showed that vaccination post debut will still reduce HPV 16/18 prevalence by half,” she added.
The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
National sample evaluated
Using data from NHANES, a biennial, cross-sectional sample (cycles 2011 through 2018), the researchers identified female persons who were aged 26 years or younger in 2006, when HPV vaccination was introduced, and who were eligible for routine vaccination or “catch-up” vaccination (given between the ages of 13 and 26 years), as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The investigators then compared the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 among unvaccinated female patients, female patients who had been vaccinated prior to their sexual debut (predebut group), and those who had been vaccinated after their sexual debut (postdebut group).
They also estimated vaccine uptake among those who were eligible for routine vaccination, as well as the proportion of vaccinated female patients with respect to racial and ethnic subgroups.
In the overall cohort, the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 decreased by 6% (95% confidence interval, 4%-7%) in the unvaccinated group to 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) in the postdebut group and to less than 1% (95% CI, <1%-1%) in the predebut group, Dr. Egemen and colleagues report.
In real percentages, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was 89% lower in the predebut group (P < .001) but only 41% lower in the postdebut group (P = .29) compared with unvaccinated female patients. And compared with female patients who were vaccinated after their sexual debut, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was reduced by 82% among those who had received the vaccine at the recommended ages of 9-12 years (P = .08).
In the current study, Dr. Egeman acknowledged that only 38% of ever-eligible female patients received the vaccine, although the prevalence increased to 56% when only female patients who were eligible for routine vaccination were taken into account. On the other hand, only 21% (95% CI, 14%-28%) of female patients eligible for routine vaccination received their first dose by age 12 years.
Indeed, the mean age on receipt of the first vaccination dose was 14.5 years (95% CI, 14.1-14.8 years), the authors note, and only 59% of girls received their first dose prior to their sexual debut. Additionally, among routine vaccination–eligible girls aged 12 years or younger in 2006, 33% were vaccinated before and 23% after their sexual debut, and the rest were not vaccinated.
Interestingly, differences in the age at which the HPV vaccine was received by race and ethnicity were negligible, the investigators point out.
Vaccination rates increasing
Asked to comment on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University, Boston Medical Center, pointed out that the investigators evaluated data from 2011 to 2018. “We know that HPV vaccination rates have increased over that period and continue to increase,” she emphasized in an email to this news organization.
Physicians also know that more persons are being vaccinated between the ages of 9 and 12 than was the case at the beginning of this study. “This is good news,” she said, “as it means that more adolescents now in 2022 are benefiting fully from vaccination than they were in 2011,” she added.
At the same time, Dr. Perkins acknowledged that many persons are still missing out on the chance to receive the vaccine on time – which means they are missing out on the chance to prevent cancer.
“Making sure that all adolescents receive vaccination between the ages of 9 to 12 has the potential to prevent up to 40,000 cancers every year in the U.S., [including] the most common HPV-related cancers, such as cervical cancer in women and tongue and tonsillar cancer in men,” Dr. Perkins noted.
“Thus, it’s critical that doctors and parents get the message that you can’t vaccinate too early, only too late,” she emphasized.
Dr. Edgman and Dr. Perkins report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The effectiveness of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18 is highly dependent on the age at which it is given. Prevalence rates have been shown to be significantly lower among girls who are vaccinated at the recommended ages of 9-12 years, compared with those who are vaccinated after their sexual debut, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate.
“HPV vaccination does not have any therapeutic effect on HPV infections already acquired, which is more likely to explain the difference in prevalence between predebut versus postdebut recipients than a lower immune response [among older recipients],” lead study author Didem Egemen, PhD, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., told this news organization in an email.
“Still, among older females, the immune response of the vaccine is likely to still be quite strong, and we would encourage vaccination [of female patients] if unvaccinated, as our paper showed that vaccination post debut will still reduce HPV 16/18 prevalence by half,” she added.
The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
National sample evaluated
Using data from NHANES, a biennial, cross-sectional sample (cycles 2011 through 2018), the researchers identified female persons who were aged 26 years or younger in 2006, when HPV vaccination was introduced, and who were eligible for routine vaccination or “catch-up” vaccination (given between the ages of 13 and 26 years), as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The investigators then compared the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 among unvaccinated female patients, female patients who had been vaccinated prior to their sexual debut (predebut group), and those who had been vaccinated after their sexual debut (postdebut group).
They also estimated vaccine uptake among those who were eligible for routine vaccination, as well as the proportion of vaccinated female patients with respect to racial and ethnic subgroups.
In the overall cohort, the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 decreased by 6% (95% confidence interval, 4%-7%) in the unvaccinated group to 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) in the postdebut group and to less than 1% (95% CI, <1%-1%) in the predebut group, Dr. Egemen and colleagues report.
In real percentages, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was 89% lower in the predebut group (P < .001) but only 41% lower in the postdebut group (P = .29) compared with unvaccinated female patients. And compared with female patients who were vaccinated after their sexual debut, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was reduced by 82% among those who had received the vaccine at the recommended ages of 9-12 years (P = .08).
In the current study, Dr. Egeman acknowledged that only 38% of ever-eligible female patients received the vaccine, although the prevalence increased to 56% when only female patients who were eligible for routine vaccination were taken into account. On the other hand, only 21% (95% CI, 14%-28%) of female patients eligible for routine vaccination received their first dose by age 12 years.
Indeed, the mean age on receipt of the first vaccination dose was 14.5 years (95% CI, 14.1-14.8 years), the authors note, and only 59% of girls received their first dose prior to their sexual debut. Additionally, among routine vaccination–eligible girls aged 12 years or younger in 2006, 33% were vaccinated before and 23% after their sexual debut, and the rest were not vaccinated.
Interestingly, differences in the age at which the HPV vaccine was received by race and ethnicity were negligible, the investigators point out.
Vaccination rates increasing
Asked to comment on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University, Boston Medical Center, pointed out that the investigators evaluated data from 2011 to 2018. “We know that HPV vaccination rates have increased over that period and continue to increase,” she emphasized in an email to this news organization.
Physicians also know that more persons are being vaccinated between the ages of 9 and 12 than was the case at the beginning of this study. “This is good news,” she said, “as it means that more adolescents now in 2022 are benefiting fully from vaccination than they were in 2011,” she added.
At the same time, Dr. Perkins acknowledged that many persons are still missing out on the chance to receive the vaccine on time – which means they are missing out on the chance to prevent cancer.
“Making sure that all adolescents receive vaccination between the ages of 9 to 12 has the potential to prevent up to 40,000 cancers every year in the U.S., [including] the most common HPV-related cancers, such as cervical cancer in women and tongue and tonsillar cancer in men,” Dr. Perkins noted.
“Thus, it’s critical that doctors and parents get the message that you can’t vaccinate too early, only too late,” she emphasized.
Dr. Edgman and Dr. Perkins report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Study uncovers two molecular subgroups of cervical cancer
Scientists have discovered that cervical cancer can be divided into two distinct molecular subgroups – one far more aggressive than the other – offering hope of better understanding and treatment of the disease.
In the United Kingdom, there are over 3,000 new case of cervical cancer, with around 850 deaths each year. It is almost always caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), and vaccination against this virus has successfully reduced the incidence of cervical cancer – in fact, the reduction has been by 87% among women in their 20s in England who were offered the vaccine when they were aged 12-13 years as part of the U.K. HPV vaccination program.
“Despite major steps forward in preventing cervical cancer, many women still die from the disease,” said Tim Fenton, MD, associate professor in cancer biology, School of Cancer Sciences Centre for Cancer Immunology, University of Southampton (England), and coauthor of the new study.
Two distinct subgroups
In the new study, published in Nature Communications, researchers described their breakthrough findings as a “major step forward” in understanding the disease, and said they provided a “tantalizing new clue” in determining the best treatments for individual patients.
For the observational study - part of the largest ‘omics’ study of its kind – researchers led by scientists at University College London and the University of Southampton began by applying a multiomics approach to identify combinations of molecular markers and characteristics associated with the biological processes involved in cervical cancer cells. The integrated multiomic analysis of 643 cervical squamous cell carcinomas (CSCC) – the most common histological variant of cervical cancer – represented patient populations from the United States, Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa.
To begin with they analysed and compared DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolites in 236 CSCC cases in a publicly available U.S. database. They found that U.S. cancers fell into two distinct “omics” subgroups, which they named C1 and C2. After further investigation, the researchers identified that C1 tumors contained a much higher number of cytotoxic T cells. “The findings suggested that patients with C1 tumors would have a stronger immune response within the tumor micro-environment,” they said.
Weaker antitumor immune response
To determine if the two sub-types affect patients with cervical cancer in different ways, the team, which also included researchers from the University of Kent, the University of Cambridge, Oslo University Hospital, the University of Bergen (Norway), and the University of Innsbruck (Austria) derived molecular profiles and looked at clinical outcomes of a further 313 CSCC cases from Norway and Austria.
The researchers found that, just as in the US cohort, nearly a quarter of patients fell into the C2 subtype, and that again C1 tumors contained far more killer T cells than C2 tumors. “Importantly, the data also showed C2 was far more clinically aggressive with worse outcomes for patients,” the authors said.
Patients with C2 tumors were more than twice as likely (hazard ratio, 2.32) to die from their cervical cancer at any point during the follow-up period – up to 21 years – than those with C1 tumors. In terms of 5-year disease-specific survival, the rates were 79% survival for C1 and 66% survival for C2, the authors pointed out.
They highlighted that the difference in outcomes between patients with C1 and C2 tumors was very similar across the US and European cohorts.
Kerry Chester, PhD, professor of molecular medicine at UCL Cancer Institute, and coauthor, said: “Inclusion of patient cohorts in Norway and Austria, for which highly detailed clinical information was available to complement the molecular data, were key factors in the success of the study.”
Analyzing a further cohort of 94 Ugandan CSCC cases, the team found that C2 tumors were much more common than C1 tumors in patients who were also HIV-positive, “underlining the link to a weaker antitumor immune response” in this group.
Molecular subtyping offers better prognostic information
Cervical cancer can be caused by at least 12 different ‘high-risk’ HPV types, and there have been conflicting reports as to whether the HPV type present in a cervical cancer influences the prognosis for the patient. CSCCs can now also be categorized into two subtypes, C1 and C2, the authors explained, among which C1 tumors have a more favorable outcome.
“Although HPV16 is more likely to cause C1 tumors and HPV18 C2 tumors, HPV type is not an independent predictor of prognosis, suggesting it is the tumor type rather than the causative HPV type that is critical for the disease outcome,” they highlighted.
“Intriguingly, the C1/C2 grouping appeared to be more informative than the type of HPV present,” they added. “While certain HPV types were found more commonly in either C1 or C2 tumors, prognosis was linked to the group to which the tumor could be assigned, rather than the HPV type it contained.”
The reason that HPV16 and other alpha-9 HPV types have been associated with more favorable outcomes was possibly that these viruses are “more likely to cause C1-type tumors”, the authors suggested. Although larger numbers are needed for robust within-stage comparisons of C1 and C2 tumors, “we observe a clear trend in the survival rates between C1 and C2 by stage”, they said.
Taking molecular (C1/C2) subtyping into account may allow for more “accurate prognostication” than current staging and potentially different clinical management of patients with C1 versus C2 tumors, the authors said. This could include the identification of patients at risk of relapse who may require further adjuvant therapy after completion of up-front therapy.
New therapeutic targets
Dr. Fenton highlighted that the study findings suggested that determining whether a patient has a C1 or a C2 cervical cancer could help in planning their treatment, since it appeared to provide “additional prognostic information beyond that gained from clinical staging”. Given the differences in the antitumor immune response observed in C1 and C2 tumors, this classification might also be useful in predicting which patients are likely to benefit from emerging immunotherapy drugs, he said.
The study findings also found that CSCC can develop along “two trajectories” associated with differing clinical behavior that can be identified using defined gene expression or DNA methylation signatures, and this may guide “improved clinical management of cervical cancer patients”, they said.
“This collaborative multidisciplinary research is a major step forward in our understanding of cervical cancer,” said Dr. Chester. “Through careful molecular profiling and genetic analysis of cervical cancer tumors we have gained valuable new insight into the tumor microenvironment and factors potentially making the cancer less aggressive in some patients.”
The authors expressed hope that their study findings will stimulate functional studies of genes and their role in cervical cancer pathogenesis, potentially enabling identification of new therapeutic targets.
The study was funded by Debbie Fund (a UCL postgraduate research scholarship), Rosetrees Trust, Cancer Research UK, the Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council, the Royal Society, and the Global Challenges Doctoral Centre at the University of Kent, MRC, PCUK, BBSRC, TUF, Orchid, and the UCLH BRC. The authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Scientists have discovered that cervical cancer can be divided into two distinct molecular subgroups – one far more aggressive than the other – offering hope of better understanding and treatment of the disease.
In the United Kingdom, there are over 3,000 new case of cervical cancer, with around 850 deaths each year. It is almost always caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), and vaccination against this virus has successfully reduced the incidence of cervical cancer – in fact, the reduction has been by 87% among women in their 20s in England who were offered the vaccine when they were aged 12-13 years as part of the U.K. HPV vaccination program.
“Despite major steps forward in preventing cervical cancer, many women still die from the disease,” said Tim Fenton, MD, associate professor in cancer biology, School of Cancer Sciences Centre for Cancer Immunology, University of Southampton (England), and coauthor of the new study.
Two distinct subgroups
In the new study, published in Nature Communications, researchers described their breakthrough findings as a “major step forward” in understanding the disease, and said they provided a “tantalizing new clue” in determining the best treatments for individual patients.
For the observational study - part of the largest ‘omics’ study of its kind – researchers led by scientists at University College London and the University of Southampton began by applying a multiomics approach to identify combinations of molecular markers and characteristics associated with the biological processes involved in cervical cancer cells. The integrated multiomic analysis of 643 cervical squamous cell carcinomas (CSCC) – the most common histological variant of cervical cancer – represented patient populations from the United States, Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa.
To begin with they analysed and compared DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolites in 236 CSCC cases in a publicly available U.S. database. They found that U.S. cancers fell into two distinct “omics” subgroups, which they named C1 and C2. After further investigation, the researchers identified that C1 tumors contained a much higher number of cytotoxic T cells. “The findings suggested that patients with C1 tumors would have a stronger immune response within the tumor micro-environment,” they said.
Weaker antitumor immune response
To determine if the two sub-types affect patients with cervical cancer in different ways, the team, which also included researchers from the University of Kent, the University of Cambridge, Oslo University Hospital, the University of Bergen (Norway), and the University of Innsbruck (Austria) derived molecular profiles and looked at clinical outcomes of a further 313 CSCC cases from Norway and Austria.
The researchers found that, just as in the US cohort, nearly a quarter of patients fell into the C2 subtype, and that again C1 tumors contained far more killer T cells than C2 tumors. “Importantly, the data also showed C2 was far more clinically aggressive with worse outcomes for patients,” the authors said.
Patients with C2 tumors were more than twice as likely (hazard ratio, 2.32) to die from their cervical cancer at any point during the follow-up period – up to 21 years – than those with C1 tumors. In terms of 5-year disease-specific survival, the rates were 79% survival for C1 and 66% survival for C2, the authors pointed out.
They highlighted that the difference in outcomes between patients with C1 and C2 tumors was very similar across the US and European cohorts.
Kerry Chester, PhD, professor of molecular medicine at UCL Cancer Institute, and coauthor, said: “Inclusion of patient cohorts in Norway and Austria, for which highly detailed clinical information was available to complement the molecular data, were key factors in the success of the study.”
Analyzing a further cohort of 94 Ugandan CSCC cases, the team found that C2 tumors were much more common than C1 tumors in patients who were also HIV-positive, “underlining the link to a weaker antitumor immune response” in this group.
Molecular subtyping offers better prognostic information
Cervical cancer can be caused by at least 12 different ‘high-risk’ HPV types, and there have been conflicting reports as to whether the HPV type present in a cervical cancer influences the prognosis for the patient. CSCCs can now also be categorized into two subtypes, C1 and C2, the authors explained, among which C1 tumors have a more favorable outcome.
“Although HPV16 is more likely to cause C1 tumors and HPV18 C2 tumors, HPV type is not an independent predictor of prognosis, suggesting it is the tumor type rather than the causative HPV type that is critical for the disease outcome,” they highlighted.
“Intriguingly, the C1/C2 grouping appeared to be more informative than the type of HPV present,” they added. “While certain HPV types were found more commonly in either C1 or C2 tumors, prognosis was linked to the group to which the tumor could be assigned, rather than the HPV type it contained.”
The reason that HPV16 and other alpha-9 HPV types have been associated with more favorable outcomes was possibly that these viruses are “more likely to cause C1-type tumors”, the authors suggested. Although larger numbers are needed for robust within-stage comparisons of C1 and C2 tumors, “we observe a clear trend in the survival rates between C1 and C2 by stage”, they said.
Taking molecular (C1/C2) subtyping into account may allow for more “accurate prognostication” than current staging and potentially different clinical management of patients with C1 versus C2 tumors, the authors said. This could include the identification of patients at risk of relapse who may require further adjuvant therapy after completion of up-front therapy.
New therapeutic targets
Dr. Fenton highlighted that the study findings suggested that determining whether a patient has a C1 or a C2 cervical cancer could help in planning their treatment, since it appeared to provide “additional prognostic information beyond that gained from clinical staging”. Given the differences in the antitumor immune response observed in C1 and C2 tumors, this classification might also be useful in predicting which patients are likely to benefit from emerging immunotherapy drugs, he said.
The study findings also found that CSCC can develop along “two trajectories” associated with differing clinical behavior that can be identified using defined gene expression or DNA methylation signatures, and this may guide “improved clinical management of cervical cancer patients”, they said.
“This collaborative multidisciplinary research is a major step forward in our understanding of cervical cancer,” said Dr. Chester. “Through careful molecular profiling and genetic analysis of cervical cancer tumors we have gained valuable new insight into the tumor microenvironment and factors potentially making the cancer less aggressive in some patients.”
The authors expressed hope that their study findings will stimulate functional studies of genes and their role in cervical cancer pathogenesis, potentially enabling identification of new therapeutic targets.
The study was funded by Debbie Fund (a UCL postgraduate research scholarship), Rosetrees Trust, Cancer Research UK, the Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council, the Royal Society, and the Global Challenges Doctoral Centre at the University of Kent, MRC, PCUK, BBSRC, TUF, Orchid, and the UCLH BRC. The authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Scientists have discovered that cervical cancer can be divided into two distinct molecular subgroups – one far more aggressive than the other – offering hope of better understanding and treatment of the disease.
In the United Kingdom, there are over 3,000 new case of cervical cancer, with around 850 deaths each year. It is almost always caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), and vaccination against this virus has successfully reduced the incidence of cervical cancer – in fact, the reduction has been by 87% among women in their 20s in England who were offered the vaccine when they were aged 12-13 years as part of the U.K. HPV vaccination program.
“Despite major steps forward in preventing cervical cancer, many women still die from the disease,” said Tim Fenton, MD, associate professor in cancer biology, School of Cancer Sciences Centre for Cancer Immunology, University of Southampton (England), and coauthor of the new study.
Two distinct subgroups
In the new study, published in Nature Communications, researchers described their breakthrough findings as a “major step forward” in understanding the disease, and said they provided a “tantalizing new clue” in determining the best treatments for individual patients.
For the observational study - part of the largest ‘omics’ study of its kind – researchers led by scientists at University College London and the University of Southampton began by applying a multiomics approach to identify combinations of molecular markers and characteristics associated with the biological processes involved in cervical cancer cells. The integrated multiomic analysis of 643 cervical squamous cell carcinomas (CSCC) – the most common histological variant of cervical cancer – represented patient populations from the United States, Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa.
To begin with they analysed and compared DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolites in 236 CSCC cases in a publicly available U.S. database. They found that U.S. cancers fell into two distinct “omics” subgroups, which they named C1 and C2. After further investigation, the researchers identified that C1 tumors contained a much higher number of cytotoxic T cells. “The findings suggested that patients with C1 tumors would have a stronger immune response within the tumor micro-environment,” they said.
Weaker antitumor immune response
To determine if the two sub-types affect patients with cervical cancer in different ways, the team, which also included researchers from the University of Kent, the University of Cambridge, Oslo University Hospital, the University of Bergen (Norway), and the University of Innsbruck (Austria) derived molecular profiles and looked at clinical outcomes of a further 313 CSCC cases from Norway and Austria.
The researchers found that, just as in the US cohort, nearly a quarter of patients fell into the C2 subtype, and that again C1 tumors contained far more killer T cells than C2 tumors. “Importantly, the data also showed C2 was far more clinically aggressive with worse outcomes for patients,” the authors said.
Patients with C2 tumors were more than twice as likely (hazard ratio, 2.32) to die from their cervical cancer at any point during the follow-up period – up to 21 years – than those with C1 tumors. In terms of 5-year disease-specific survival, the rates were 79% survival for C1 and 66% survival for C2, the authors pointed out.
They highlighted that the difference in outcomes between patients with C1 and C2 tumors was very similar across the US and European cohorts.
Kerry Chester, PhD, professor of molecular medicine at UCL Cancer Institute, and coauthor, said: “Inclusion of patient cohorts in Norway and Austria, for which highly detailed clinical information was available to complement the molecular data, were key factors in the success of the study.”
Analyzing a further cohort of 94 Ugandan CSCC cases, the team found that C2 tumors were much more common than C1 tumors in patients who were also HIV-positive, “underlining the link to a weaker antitumor immune response” in this group.
Molecular subtyping offers better prognostic information
Cervical cancer can be caused by at least 12 different ‘high-risk’ HPV types, and there have been conflicting reports as to whether the HPV type present in a cervical cancer influences the prognosis for the patient. CSCCs can now also be categorized into two subtypes, C1 and C2, the authors explained, among which C1 tumors have a more favorable outcome.
“Although HPV16 is more likely to cause C1 tumors and HPV18 C2 tumors, HPV type is not an independent predictor of prognosis, suggesting it is the tumor type rather than the causative HPV type that is critical for the disease outcome,” they highlighted.
“Intriguingly, the C1/C2 grouping appeared to be more informative than the type of HPV present,” they added. “While certain HPV types were found more commonly in either C1 or C2 tumors, prognosis was linked to the group to which the tumor could be assigned, rather than the HPV type it contained.”
The reason that HPV16 and other alpha-9 HPV types have been associated with more favorable outcomes was possibly that these viruses are “more likely to cause C1-type tumors”, the authors suggested. Although larger numbers are needed for robust within-stage comparisons of C1 and C2 tumors, “we observe a clear trend in the survival rates between C1 and C2 by stage”, they said.
Taking molecular (C1/C2) subtyping into account may allow for more “accurate prognostication” than current staging and potentially different clinical management of patients with C1 versus C2 tumors, the authors said. This could include the identification of patients at risk of relapse who may require further adjuvant therapy after completion of up-front therapy.
New therapeutic targets
Dr. Fenton highlighted that the study findings suggested that determining whether a patient has a C1 or a C2 cervical cancer could help in planning their treatment, since it appeared to provide “additional prognostic information beyond that gained from clinical staging”. Given the differences in the antitumor immune response observed in C1 and C2 tumors, this classification might also be useful in predicting which patients are likely to benefit from emerging immunotherapy drugs, he said.
The study findings also found that CSCC can develop along “two trajectories” associated with differing clinical behavior that can be identified using defined gene expression or DNA methylation signatures, and this may guide “improved clinical management of cervical cancer patients”, they said.
“This collaborative multidisciplinary research is a major step forward in our understanding of cervical cancer,” said Dr. Chester. “Through careful molecular profiling and genetic analysis of cervical cancer tumors we have gained valuable new insight into the tumor microenvironment and factors potentially making the cancer less aggressive in some patients.”
The authors expressed hope that their study findings will stimulate functional studies of genes and their role in cervical cancer pathogenesis, potentially enabling identification of new therapeutic targets.
The study was funded by Debbie Fund (a UCL postgraduate research scholarship), Rosetrees Trust, Cancer Research UK, the Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council, the Royal Society, and the Global Challenges Doctoral Centre at the University of Kent, MRC, PCUK, BBSRC, TUF, Orchid, and the UCLH BRC. The authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
FROM NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Hair straighteners’ risk too small for docs to advise against their use
Clarissa Ghazi gets lye relaxers, which contain the chemical sodium hydroxide, applied to her hair two to three times a year.
A recent study that made headlines over a potential link between hair straighteners and uterine cancer is not going to make her stop.
“This study is not enough to cause me to say I’ll stay away from this because [the researchers] don’t prove that using relaxers causes cancer,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Indeed, primary care doctors are unlikely to address the increased risk of uterine cancer in women who frequently use hair straighteners that the study reported.
In the recently published paper on this research, the authors said that they found an 80% higher adjusted risk of uterine cancer among women who had ever “straightened,” “relaxed,” or used “hair pressing products” in the 12 months before enrolling in their study.
This finding is “real, but small,” says internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Dr. Paauw is among several primary care doctors interviewed for this story who expressed little concern about the implications of this research for their patients.
“Since we have hundreds of things we are supposed to discuss at our 20-minute clinic visits, this would not make the cut,” Dr. Paauw said.
While it’s good to be able to answer questions a patient might ask about this new research, the study does not prove anything, he said.
Alan Nelson, MD, an internist-endocrinologist and former special adviser to the CEO of the American College of Physicians, said while the study is well done, the number of actual cases of uterine cancer found was small.
One of the reasons he would not recommend discussing the study with patients is that the brands of hair products used to straighten hair in the study were not identified.
Alexandra White, PhD, lead author of the study, said participants were simply asked, “In the past 12 months, how frequently have you or someone else straightened or relaxed your hair, or used hair pressing products?”
The terms “straightened,” “relaxed,” and “hair pressing products” were not defined, and “some women may have interpreted the term ‘pressing products’ to mean nonchemical products” such as flat irons, Dr. White, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group, said in an email.
Dermatologist Crystal Aguh, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, tweeted the following advice in light of the new findings: “The overall risk of uterine cancer is quite low so it’s important to remember that. For now, if you want to change your routine, there’s no downside to decreasing your frequency of hair straightening to every 12 weeks or more, as that may lessen your risk.”
She also noted that “styles like relaxer, silk pressing, and keratin treatments should only be done by a professional, as this will decrease the likelihood of hair damage and scalp irritation.
“I also encourage women to look for hair products free of parabens and phthalates (which are generically listed as “fragrance”) on products to minimize exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals.”
Not ready to go curly
Ms. Ghazi said she decided to stop using keratin straighteners years ago after she learned they are made with several added ingredients. That includes the chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, according to the American Cancer Society.
“People have been relaxing their hair for a very long time, and I feel more comfortable using [a relaxer] to straighten my hair than any of the others out there,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Janaki Ram, who has had her hair chemically straightened several times, said the findings have not made her worried that straightening will cause her to get uterine cancer specifically, but that they are a reminder that the chemicals in these products could harm her in some other way.
She said the new study findings, her knowledge of the damage straightening causes to hair, and the lengthy amount of time receiving a keratin treatment takes will lead her to reduce the frequency with which she gets her hair straightened.
“Going forward, I will have this done once a year instead of twice a year,” she said.
Dr. White, the author of the paper, said in an interview that the takeaway for consumers is that women who reported frequent use of hair straighteners/relaxers and pressing products were more than twice as likely to go on to develop uterine cancer compared to women who reported no use of these products in the previous year.
“However, uterine cancer is relatively rare, so these increases in risks are small,” she said. “Less frequent use of these products was not as strongly associated with risk, suggesting that decreasing use may be an option to reduce harmful exposure. Black women were the most frequent users of these products and therefore these findings are more relevant for Black women.”
In a statement, Dr. White noted, “We estimated that 1.64% of women who never used hair straighteners would go on to develop uterine cancer by the age of 70; but for frequent users, that risk goes up to 4.05%.”
The findings were based on the Sister Study, which enrolled women living in the United States, including Puerto Rico, between 2003 and 2009. Participants needed to have at least one sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, been breast cancer-free themselves, and aged 35-74 years. Women who reported a diagnosis of uterine cancer before enrollment, had an uncertain uterine cancer history, or had a hysterectomy were excluded from the study.
The researchers examined hair product usage and uterine cancer incidence during an 11-year period among 33 ,947 women. The analysis controlled for variables such as age, race, and risk factors. At baseline, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on hair products use in the previous 12 months.
“One of the original aims of the study was to better understand the environmental and genetic causes of breast cancer, but we are also interested in studying ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and many other cancers and chronic diseases,” Dr. White said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Clarissa Ghazi gets lye relaxers, which contain the chemical sodium hydroxide, applied to her hair two to three times a year.
A recent study that made headlines over a potential link between hair straighteners and uterine cancer is not going to make her stop.
“This study is not enough to cause me to say I’ll stay away from this because [the researchers] don’t prove that using relaxers causes cancer,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Indeed, primary care doctors are unlikely to address the increased risk of uterine cancer in women who frequently use hair straighteners that the study reported.
In the recently published paper on this research, the authors said that they found an 80% higher adjusted risk of uterine cancer among women who had ever “straightened,” “relaxed,” or used “hair pressing products” in the 12 months before enrolling in their study.
This finding is “real, but small,” says internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Dr. Paauw is among several primary care doctors interviewed for this story who expressed little concern about the implications of this research for their patients.
“Since we have hundreds of things we are supposed to discuss at our 20-minute clinic visits, this would not make the cut,” Dr. Paauw said.
While it’s good to be able to answer questions a patient might ask about this new research, the study does not prove anything, he said.
Alan Nelson, MD, an internist-endocrinologist and former special adviser to the CEO of the American College of Physicians, said while the study is well done, the number of actual cases of uterine cancer found was small.
One of the reasons he would not recommend discussing the study with patients is that the brands of hair products used to straighten hair in the study were not identified.
Alexandra White, PhD, lead author of the study, said participants were simply asked, “In the past 12 months, how frequently have you or someone else straightened or relaxed your hair, or used hair pressing products?”
The terms “straightened,” “relaxed,” and “hair pressing products” were not defined, and “some women may have interpreted the term ‘pressing products’ to mean nonchemical products” such as flat irons, Dr. White, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group, said in an email.
Dermatologist Crystal Aguh, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, tweeted the following advice in light of the new findings: “The overall risk of uterine cancer is quite low so it’s important to remember that. For now, if you want to change your routine, there’s no downside to decreasing your frequency of hair straightening to every 12 weeks or more, as that may lessen your risk.”
She also noted that “styles like relaxer, silk pressing, and keratin treatments should only be done by a professional, as this will decrease the likelihood of hair damage and scalp irritation.
“I also encourage women to look for hair products free of parabens and phthalates (which are generically listed as “fragrance”) on products to minimize exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals.”
Not ready to go curly
Ms. Ghazi said she decided to stop using keratin straighteners years ago after she learned they are made with several added ingredients. That includes the chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, according to the American Cancer Society.
“People have been relaxing their hair for a very long time, and I feel more comfortable using [a relaxer] to straighten my hair than any of the others out there,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Janaki Ram, who has had her hair chemically straightened several times, said the findings have not made her worried that straightening will cause her to get uterine cancer specifically, but that they are a reminder that the chemicals in these products could harm her in some other way.
She said the new study findings, her knowledge of the damage straightening causes to hair, and the lengthy amount of time receiving a keratin treatment takes will lead her to reduce the frequency with which she gets her hair straightened.
“Going forward, I will have this done once a year instead of twice a year,” she said.
Dr. White, the author of the paper, said in an interview that the takeaway for consumers is that women who reported frequent use of hair straighteners/relaxers and pressing products were more than twice as likely to go on to develop uterine cancer compared to women who reported no use of these products in the previous year.
“However, uterine cancer is relatively rare, so these increases in risks are small,” she said. “Less frequent use of these products was not as strongly associated with risk, suggesting that decreasing use may be an option to reduce harmful exposure. Black women were the most frequent users of these products and therefore these findings are more relevant for Black women.”
In a statement, Dr. White noted, “We estimated that 1.64% of women who never used hair straighteners would go on to develop uterine cancer by the age of 70; but for frequent users, that risk goes up to 4.05%.”
The findings were based on the Sister Study, which enrolled women living in the United States, including Puerto Rico, between 2003 and 2009. Participants needed to have at least one sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, been breast cancer-free themselves, and aged 35-74 years. Women who reported a diagnosis of uterine cancer before enrollment, had an uncertain uterine cancer history, or had a hysterectomy were excluded from the study.
The researchers examined hair product usage and uterine cancer incidence during an 11-year period among 33 ,947 women. The analysis controlled for variables such as age, race, and risk factors. At baseline, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on hair products use in the previous 12 months.
“One of the original aims of the study was to better understand the environmental and genetic causes of breast cancer, but we are also interested in studying ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and many other cancers and chronic diseases,” Dr. White said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Clarissa Ghazi gets lye relaxers, which contain the chemical sodium hydroxide, applied to her hair two to three times a year.
A recent study that made headlines over a potential link between hair straighteners and uterine cancer is not going to make her stop.
“This study is not enough to cause me to say I’ll stay away from this because [the researchers] don’t prove that using relaxers causes cancer,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Indeed, primary care doctors are unlikely to address the increased risk of uterine cancer in women who frequently use hair straighteners that the study reported.
In the recently published paper on this research, the authors said that they found an 80% higher adjusted risk of uterine cancer among women who had ever “straightened,” “relaxed,” or used “hair pressing products” in the 12 months before enrolling in their study.
This finding is “real, but small,” says internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Dr. Paauw is among several primary care doctors interviewed for this story who expressed little concern about the implications of this research for their patients.
“Since we have hundreds of things we are supposed to discuss at our 20-minute clinic visits, this would not make the cut,” Dr. Paauw said.
While it’s good to be able to answer questions a patient might ask about this new research, the study does not prove anything, he said.
Alan Nelson, MD, an internist-endocrinologist and former special adviser to the CEO of the American College of Physicians, said while the study is well done, the number of actual cases of uterine cancer found was small.
One of the reasons he would not recommend discussing the study with patients is that the brands of hair products used to straighten hair in the study were not identified.
Alexandra White, PhD, lead author of the study, said participants were simply asked, “In the past 12 months, how frequently have you or someone else straightened or relaxed your hair, or used hair pressing products?”
The terms “straightened,” “relaxed,” and “hair pressing products” were not defined, and “some women may have interpreted the term ‘pressing products’ to mean nonchemical products” such as flat irons, Dr. White, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group, said in an email.
Dermatologist Crystal Aguh, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, tweeted the following advice in light of the new findings: “The overall risk of uterine cancer is quite low so it’s important to remember that. For now, if you want to change your routine, there’s no downside to decreasing your frequency of hair straightening to every 12 weeks or more, as that may lessen your risk.”
She also noted that “styles like relaxer, silk pressing, and keratin treatments should only be done by a professional, as this will decrease the likelihood of hair damage and scalp irritation.
“I also encourage women to look for hair products free of parabens and phthalates (which are generically listed as “fragrance”) on products to minimize exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals.”
Not ready to go curly
Ms. Ghazi said she decided to stop using keratin straighteners years ago after she learned they are made with several added ingredients. That includes the chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, according to the American Cancer Society.
“People have been relaxing their hair for a very long time, and I feel more comfortable using [a relaxer] to straighten my hair than any of the others out there,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Janaki Ram, who has had her hair chemically straightened several times, said the findings have not made her worried that straightening will cause her to get uterine cancer specifically, but that they are a reminder that the chemicals in these products could harm her in some other way.
She said the new study findings, her knowledge of the damage straightening causes to hair, and the lengthy amount of time receiving a keratin treatment takes will lead her to reduce the frequency with which she gets her hair straightened.
“Going forward, I will have this done once a year instead of twice a year,” she said.
Dr. White, the author of the paper, said in an interview that the takeaway for consumers is that women who reported frequent use of hair straighteners/relaxers and pressing products were more than twice as likely to go on to develop uterine cancer compared to women who reported no use of these products in the previous year.
“However, uterine cancer is relatively rare, so these increases in risks are small,” she said. “Less frequent use of these products was not as strongly associated with risk, suggesting that decreasing use may be an option to reduce harmful exposure. Black women were the most frequent users of these products and therefore these findings are more relevant for Black women.”
In a statement, Dr. White noted, “We estimated that 1.64% of women who never used hair straighteners would go on to develop uterine cancer by the age of 70; but for frequent users, that risk goes up to 4.05%.”
The findings were based on the Sister Study, which enrolled women living in the United States, including Puerto Rico, between 2003 and 2009. Participants needed to have at least one sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, been breast cancer-free themselves, and aged 35-74 years. Women who reported a diagnosis of uterine cancer before enrollment, had an uncertain uterine cancer history, or had a hysterectomy were excluded from the study.
The researchers examined hair product usage and uterine cancer incidence during an 11-year period among 33 ,947 women. The analysis controlled for variables such as age, race, and risk factors. At baseline, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on hair products use in the previous 12 months.
“One of the original aims of the study was to better understand the environmental and genetic causes of breast cancer, but we are also interested in studying ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and many other cancers and chronic diseases,” Dr. White said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Germline genetic testing: Why it matters and where we are failing
Historically, the role of genetic testing has been to identify familial cancer syndromes and initiate cascade testing. If a germline pathogenic variant is found in an individual, cascade testing involves genetic counseling and testing of blood relatives, starting with those closest in relation to the proband, to identify other family members at high hereditary cancer risk. Once testing identifies those family members at higher cancer risk, these individuals can be referred for risk-reducing procedures. They can undergo screening tests starting at an earlier age and/or increased frequency to help prevent invasive cancer or diagnose it at an earlier stage.
Genetic testing can also inform prognosis. While women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at higher risk of developing ovarian cancer compared with the baseline population, the presence of a germline BRCA mutation has been shown to confer improved survival compared with no BRCA mutation (BRCA wild type). However, more recent data have shown that when long-term survival was analyzed, the prognostic benefit seen in patients with a germline BRCA mutation was lost. The initial survival advantage seen in this population may be related to increased sensitivity to treatment. There appears to be improved response to platinum therapy, which is the standard of care for upfront treatment, in germline BRCA mutation carriers.
Most recently, genetic testing has been used to guide treatment decisions in gynecologic cancers. In 2014, the first poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib, received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer in the presence of a germline BRCA mutation. Now there are multiple PARP inhibitors that have FDA approval for ovarian cancer treatment, some as frontline treatment.
Previous data indicate that 13%-18% of women with ovarian cancer have a germline BRCA mutation that places them at increased risk of hereditary ovarian cancer.1 Current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Despite these guidelines, rates of referral for genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing are low.
There has been improvement for both referrals and testing since the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients, which recommended that all women, even those without any significant family history, should receive genetic counseling and be offered genetic testing.2 When including only studies that collected data after the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing, a recent systematic review found that 64% of patients were referred for genetic counseling and 63% underwent testing.3
Clinical interventions to target genetic evaluation appear to improve uptake of both counseling and testing. These interventions include using telemedicine to deliver genetic counseling services, mainstreaming (counseling and testing are provided in an oncology clinic by nongenetics specialists), having a genetic counselor within the clinic, and performing reflex testing. With limited numbers of genetic counselors (and even further limited numbers of cancer-specific genetic counselors),4 referral for genetic counseling before testing is often challenging and may not be feasible. There is continued need for strategies to help overcome the barrier to accessing genetic counseling.
While the data are limited, there appear to be significant disparities in rates of genetic testing. Genetic counseling and testing were completed by White (43% and 40%) patients more frequently than by either Black (24% and 26%) or Asian (23% and 14%) patients.4 Uninsured patients were about half as likely (23% vs. 47%) to complete genetic testing as were those with private insurance.4
Genetic testing is an important tool to help identify individuals and families at risk of having hereditary cancer syndromes. This identification allows us to prevent many cancers and identify others while still early stage, significantly decreasing the health care and financial burden on our society and improving outcomes for patients. While we have seen improvement in rates of referral for genetic counseling and testing, we are still falling short. Given the shortage of genetic counselors, it is imperative that we find solutions to ensure continued and improved access to genetic testing for our patients.
Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
References
1. Norquist BM et al. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(4):482-90.
2. SGO Clinical Practice Statement. 2014 Oct 1.
3. Lin J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162(2):506-16.
4. American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2016 Apr;12(4):339-83.
Historically, the role of genetic testing has been to identify familial cancer syndromes and initiate cascade testing. If a germline pathogenic variant is found in an individual, cascade testing involves genetic counseling and testing of blood relatives, starting with those closest in relation to the proband, to identify other family members at high hereditary cancer risk. Once testing identifies those family members at higher cancer risk, these individuals can be referred for risk-reducing procedures. They can undergo screening tests starting at an earlier age and/or increased frequency to help prevent invasive cancer or diagnose it at an earlier stage.
Genetic testing can also inform prognosis. While women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at higher risk of developing ovarian cancer compared with the baseline population, the presence of a germline BRCA mutation has been shown to confer improved survival compared with no BRCA mutation (BRCA wild type). However, more recent data have shown that when long-term survival was analyzed, the prognostic benefit seen in patients with a germline BRCA mutation was lost. The initial survival advantage seen in this population may be related to increased sensitivity to treatment. There appears to be improved response to platinum therapy, which is the standard of care for upfront treatment, in germline BRCA mutation carriers.
Most recently, genetic testing has been used to guide treatment decisions in gynecologic cancers. In 2014, the first poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib, received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer in the presence of a germline BRCA mutation. Now there are multiple PARP inhibitors that have FDA approval for ovarian cancer treatment, some as frontline treatment.
Previous data indicate that 13%-18% of women with ovarian cancer have a germline BRCA mutation that places them at increased risk of hereditary ovarian cancer.1 Current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Despite these guidelines, rates of referral for genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing are low.
There has been improvement for both referrals and testing since the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients, which recommended that all women, even those without any significant family history, should receive genetic counseling and be offered genetic testing.2 When including only studies that collected data after the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing, a recent systematic review found that 64% of patients were referred for genetic counseling and 63% underwent testing.3
Clinical interventions to target genetic evaluation appear to improve uptake of both counseling and testing. These interventions include using telemedicine to deliver genetic counseling services, mainstreaming (counseling and testing are provided in an oncology clinic by nongenetics specialists), having a genetic counselor within the clinic, and performing reflex testing. With limited numbers of genetic counselors (and even further limited numbers of cancer-specific genetic counselors),4 referral for genetic counseling before testing is often challenging and may not be feasible. There is continued need for strategies to help overcome the barrier to accessing genetic counseling.
While the data are limited, there appear to be significant disparities in rates of genetic testing. Genetic counseling and testing were completed by White (43% and 40%) patients more frequently than by either Black (24% and 26%) or Asian (23% and 14%) patients.4 Uninsured patients were about half as likely (23% vs. 47%) to complete genetic testing as were those with private insurance.4
Genetic testing is an important tool to help identify individuals and families at risk of having hereditary cancer syndromes. This identification allows us to prevent many cancers and identify others while still early stage, significantly decreasing the health care and financial burden on our society and improving outcomes for patients. While we have seen improvement in rates of referral for genetic counseling and testing, we are still falling short. Given the shortage of genetic counselors, it is imperative that we find solutions to ensure continued and improved access to genetic testing for our patients.
Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
References
1. Norquist BM et al. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(4):482-90.
2. SGO Clinical Practice Statement. 2014 Oct 1.
3. Lin J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162(2):506-16.
4. American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2016 Apr;12(4):339-83.
Historically, the role of genetic testing has been to identify familial cancer syndromes and initiate cascade testing. If a germline pathogenic variant is found in an individual, cascade testing involves genetic counseling and testing of blood relatives, starting with those closest in relation to the proband, to identify other family members at high hereditary cancer risk. Once testing identifies those family members at higher cancer risk, these individuals can be referred for risk-reducing procedures. They can undergo screening tests starting at an earlier age and/or increased frequency to help prevent invasive cancer or diagnose it at an earlier stage.
Genetic testing can also inform prognosis. While women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at higher risk of developing ovarian cancer compared with the baseline population, the presence of a germline BRCA mutation has been shown to confer improved survival compared with no BRCA mutation (BRCA wild type). However, more recent data have shown that when long-term survival was analyzed, the prognostic benefit seen in patients with a germline BRCA mutation was lost. The initial survival advantage seen in this population may be related to increased sensitivity to treatment. There appears to be improved response to platinum therapy, which is the standard of care for upfront treatment, in germline BRCA mutation carriers.
Most recently, genetic testing has been used to guide treatment decisions in gynecologic cancers. In 2014, the first poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib, received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer in the presence of a germline BRCA mutation. Now there are multiple PARP inhibitors that have FDA approval for ovarian cancer treatment, some as frontline treatment.
Previous data indicate that 13%-18% of women with ovarian cancer have a germline BRCA mutation that places them at increased risk of hereditary ovarian cancer.1 Current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Despite these guidelines, rates of referral for genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing are low.
There has been improvement for both referrals and testing since the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients, which recommended that all women, even those without any significant family history, should receive genetic counseling and be offered genetic testing.2 When including only studies that collected data after the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing, a recent systematic review found that 64% of patients were referred for genetic counseling and 63% underwent testing.3
Clinical interventions to target genetic evaluation appear to improve uptake of both counseling and testing. These interventions include using telemedicine to deliver genetic counseling services, mainstreaming (counseling and testing are provided in an oncology clinic by nongenetics specialists), having a genetic counselor within the clinic, and performing reflex testing. With limited numbers of genetic counselors (and even further limited numbers of cancer-specific genetic counselors),4 referral for genetic counseling before testing is often challenging and may not be feasible. There is continued need for strategies to help overcome the barrier to accessing genetic counseling.
While the data are limited, there appear to be significant disparities in rates of genetic testing. Genetic counseling and testing were completed by White (43% and 40%) patients more frequently than by either Black (24% and 26%) or Asian (23% and 14%) patients.4 Uninsured patients were about half as likely (23% vs. 47%) to complete genetic testing as were those with private insurance.4
Genetic testing is an important tool to help identify individuals and families at risk of having hereditary cancer syndromes. This identification allows us to prevent many cancers and identify others while still early stage, significantly decreasing the health care and financial burden on our society and improving outcomes for patients. While we have seen improvement in rates of referral for genetic counseling and testing, we are still falling short. Given the shortage of genetic counselors, it is imperative that we find solutions to ensure continued and improved access to genetic testing for our patients.
Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
References
1. Norquist BM et al. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(4):482-90.
2. SGO Clinical Practice Statement. 2014 Oct 1.
3. Lin J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162(2):506-16.
4. American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2016 Apr;12(4):339-83.
HPV infection in pregnancy higher among women living with HIV
Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.
“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.
“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”
Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
A study of studies
Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.
They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).
Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:
- The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
- Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
- Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
- HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
- One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.
Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV
“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.
“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.
“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”
Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.
“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.
“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
HPV vaccination recommended
The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”
The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.
“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.
“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.
Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.
“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.
“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”
Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
A study of studies
Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.
They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).
Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:
- The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
- Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
- Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
- HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
- One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.
Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV
“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.
“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.
“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”
Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.
“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.
“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
HPV vaccination recommended
The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”
The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.
“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.
“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.
Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.
“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.
“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”
Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
A study of studies
Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.
They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).
Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:
- The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
- Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
- Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
- HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
- One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.
Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV
“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.
“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.
“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”
Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.
“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.
“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
HPV vaccination recommended
The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”
The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.
“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.
“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.
Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME.