Gynecologic Cancer

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

The use of laparoscopic power morcellators for minimally invasive hysterectomy has significantly decreased, and while the use of containment bags increased after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2014 safety warning about power morcellators, most procedures employing them are still performed without bags, according to a large database study in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Containment bags are thought to limit the dissemination of potentially pathologic tissue, including unsuspected cancerous cells.

Rates of uterine cancer in women having morcellation were similar before and after the 2014 FDA guidance, and containment bags were used in only a small proportion of women with uterine cancer, according to findings from a research group led by Jason D. Wright, MD, of the division of gynecologic oncology at Columbia University, New York.

“Despite warnings from professional societies and regulatory agencies, as well as intense public scrutiny after the FDA warnings, the majority of morcellated uterine cancers occurred with uncontained laparoscopic power morcellation,” Dr. Wright and associates wrote, adding that the findings have important policy implications. First, efforts are needed to ensure morcellation is avoided in women with pathologic abnormalities. Second, despite regulatory approval, the safety and efficacy of containment bags remain uncertain, and the use and outcomes of these devices should be monitored closely.

The authors noted that laparoscopic power morcellation with a containment bag actually carries a small but significant increase in the risk of complications, compared with uncontained morcellation.

The study

Drawing on the Premier Healthcare Database, the researchers looked at deidentified patients aged 18 years or older who underwent laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy from 2010 to 2018. The largest age group having the procedure consisted of women aged 40-49.

Patients were stratified based on use of laparoscopic power morcellators.

The cohort was further stratified as either pre–FDA guidance (2010 quarter 1 to 2014 quarter 1) or post–FDA guidance (2014 quarter 2 to 2018 quarter 2).

In the final cohort of 67,115 patients, laparoscopic power morcellator use decreased from 66.7% in 2013 quarter 4 to 13.3% by 2018 quarter 2. The likelihood of using this device decreased by 9.5% for each quarter elapsed in the post–FDA warning period (risk ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.91).

In other findings, containment bag use rose from 5.2% in 2013 quarter 4 to 15.2% by 2018 quarter 2. The likelihood of containment bag use rose by 3% for each quarter elapsed in the post–FDA warning period (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).

Among women who underwent surgery with laparoscopic power morcellator use, uterine cancers or sarcomas were identified in 54 (0.17%) before the FDA guidance, compared with 7 (0.12%) after the guidance (P = .45).

Containment bags were used in 11.1% of women with uterine cancers or sarcomas before the FDA guidance, compared with 14.3% after the guidance (P = .12). The perioperative complication rate was 3.3% among women who had laparoscopic power morcellator use without a containment bag, compared with 4.5% (P = .001) in those with a containment bag (adjusted RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.12-1.64).

A related editorial argued that the backlash against power morcellation was unwarranted and an example of “reactionary medicine.”

Ben A. Abdu, MD, and Cameron Lowry, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, noted that with the known advantages of laparoscopy over laparotomy – decreased blood loss, decreased pain, and fewer wound complications and infections – it is of paramount importance to continue to offer minimally invasive surgery whenever possible. After the FDA raised safety concerns, there was a rise in the rate of open abdominal hysterectomy, which was accompanied by an increase in surgical morbidity. “Perhaps for now we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water,” they wrote.

The editorialists pointed out that any surgery may entail unintended complications. “It is also important to remember that there is a risk of dissemination of malignant tissue whether or not power morcellation is used, and it has even been observed in laparotomy,” they stated, noting that bag rupture and tissue spillage can occur even when the containment bag remains intact.

The downward trend in the use of power morcellators observed by Dr. Wright’s group is of serious concern, the commentators added, especially because the FDA communication was made in response to a rare occurrence and possibly resting on an overestimation of risk. “Based on their review of the medical literature at the time, the FDA cited prevalence estimates of 1 in 352 for any uterine sarcoma and 1 in 498 for leiomyosarcoma,” they wrote. “Many authors have expressed concern that the FDA data review was overestimated.” For example, they cite a meta-analysis using prospective data in which the prevalence of occult leiomyosarcoma was estimated at 1 in 8,300. Despite this extremely low prevalence, there has been an almost total nationwide hospital moratorium on the use of power morcellation, which will likely continue. Some manufacturers have ceased or limited production, distribution, and sales of these devices, they noted.

According to Dr. Michael L. Nimaroff, MD, however, chief of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., the general post–FDA-guidance backlash did not have much effect on expert practitioners in this surgical field. “Those of us who specialize in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, which has many benefits for the patients, never pivoted,” he told this news organization. “We continued to perform it but more conscientiously and with more concern for safety.”

As for morcellator use, added Dr. Nimaroff, specialists were so accustomed to doing these surgeries before the containment systems were made available that they don’t miss the power morcellator. “We actually retrieve tissue manually, and most of our morcellations, if they’re not contained manually, are retrieved vaginally or through a slightly bigger incision. So patients still benefit from minimally invasive surgery, and in some cases these techniques actually shorten the operation.”

This study received no external funding. Dr. Wright is editor in chief of Obstetrics & Gynecology. He reported royalties from UpToDate and has received research support from Merck. Coauthor Dr. Hou has served as a consultant for Foundation Medicine and Natera. Dr. Abdu and Dr. Lowry disclosed no competing interests, as did Dr. Nimaroff.

The use of laparoscopic power morcellators for minimally invasive hysterectomy has significantly decreased, and while the use of containment bags increased after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2014 safety warning about power morcellators, most procedures employing them are still performed without bags, according to a large database study in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Containment bags are thought to limit the dissemination of potentially pathologic tissue, including unsuspected cancerous cells.

Rates of uterine cancer in women having morcellation were similar before and after the 2014 FDA guidance, and containment bags were used in only a small proportion of women with uterine cancer, according to findings from a research group led by Jason D. Wright, MD, of the division of gynecologic oncology at Columbia University, New York.

“Despite warnings from professional societies and regulatory agencies, as well as intense public scrutiny after the FDA warnings, the majority of morcellated uterine cancers occurred with uncontained laparoscopic power morcellation,” Dr. Wright and associates wrote, adding that the findings have important policy implications. First, efforts are needed to ensure morcellation is avoided in women with pathologic abnormalities. Second, despite regulatory approval, the safety and efficacy of containment bags remain uncertain, and the use and outcomes of these devices should be monitored closely.

The authors noted that laparoscopic power morcellation with a containment bag actually carries a small but significant increase in the risk of complications, compared with uncontained morcellation.

The study

Drawing on the Premier Healthcare Database, the researchers looked at deidentified patients aged 18 years or older who underwent laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy from 2010 to 2018. The largest age group having the procedure consisted of women aged 40-49.

Patients were stratified based on use of laparoscopic power morcellators.

The cohort was further stratified as either pre–FDA guidance (2010 quarter 1 to 2014 quarter 1) or post–FDA guidance (2014 quarter 2 to 2018 quarter 2).

In the final cohort of 67,115 patients, laparoscopic power morcellator use decreased from 66.7% in 2013 quarter 4 to 13.3% by 2018 quarter 2. The likelihood of using this device decreased by 9.5% for each quarter elapsed in the post–FDA warning period (risk ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.91).

In other findings, containment bag use rose from 5.2% in 2013 quarter 4 to 15.2% by 2018 quarter 2. The likelihood of containment bag use rose by 3% for each quarter elapsed in the post–FDA warning period (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).

Among women who underwent surgery with laparoscopic power morcellator use, uterine cancers or sarcomas were identified in 54 (0.17%) before the FDA guidance, compared with 7 (0.12%) after the guidance (P = .45).

Containment bags were used in 11.1% of women with uterine cancers or sarcomas before the FDA guidance, compared with 14.3% after the guidance (P = .12). The perioperative complication rate was 3.3% among women who had laparoscopic power morcellator use without a containment bag, compared with 4.5% (P = .001) in those with a containment bag (adjusted RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.12-1.64).

A related editorial argued that the backlash against power morcellation was unwarranted and an example of “reactionary medicine.”

Ben A. Abdu, MD, and Cameron Lowry, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, noted that with the known advantages of laparoscopy over laparotomy – decreased blood loss, decreased pain, and fewer wound complications and infections – it is of paramount importance to continue to offer minimally invasive surgery whenever possible. After the FDA raised safety concerns, there was a rise in the rate of open abdominal hysterectomy, which was accompanied by an increase in surgical morbidity. “Perhaps for now we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water,” they wrote.

The editorialists pointed out that any surgery may entail unintended complications. “It is also important to remember that there is a risk of dissemination of malignant tissue whether or not power morcellation is used, and it has even been observed in laparotomy,” they stated, noting that bag rupture and tissue spillage can occur even when the containment bag remains intact.

The downward trend in the use of power morcellators observed by Dr. Wright’s group is of serious concern, the commentators added, especially because the FDA communication was made in response to a rare occurrence and possibly resting on an overestimation of risk. “Based on their review of the medical literature at the time, the FDA cited prevalence estimates of 1 in 352 for any uterine sarcoma and 1 in 498 for leiomyosarcoma,” they wrote. “Many authors have expressed concern that the FDA data review was overestimated.” For example, they cite a meta-analysis using prospective data in which the prevalence of occult leiomyosarcoma was estimated at 1 in 8,300. Despite this extremely low prevalence, there has been an almost total nationwide hospital moratorium on the use of power morcellation, which will likely continue. Some manufacturers have ceased or limited production, distribution, and sales of these devices, they noted.

According to Dr. Michael L. Nimaroff, MD, however, chief of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., the general post–FDA-guidance backlash did not have much effect on expert practitioners in this surgical field. “Those of us who specialize in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, which has many benefits for the patients, never pivoted,” he told this news organization. “We continued to perform it but more conscientiously and with more concern for safety.”

As for morcellator use, added Dr. Nimaroff, specialists were so accustomed to doing these surgeries before the containment systems were made available that they don’t miss the power morcellator. “We actually retrieve tissue manually, and most of our morcellations, if they’re not contained manually, are retrieved vaginally or through a slightly bigger incision. So patients still benefit from minimally invasive surgery, and in some cases these techniques actually shorten the operation.”

This study received no external funding. Dr. Wright is editor in chief of Obstetrics & Gynecology. He reported royalties from UpToDate and has received research support from Merck. Coauthor Dr. Hou has served as a consultant for Foundation Medicine and Natera. Dr. Abdu and Dr. Lowry disclosed no competing interests, as did Dr. Nimaroff.

The use of laparoscopic power morcellators for minimally invasive hysterectomy has significantly decreased, and while the use of containment bags increased after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2014 safety warning about power morcellators, most procedures employing them are still performed without bags, according to a large database study in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Containment bags are thought to limit the dissemination of potentially pathologic tissue, including unsuspected cancerous cells.

Rates of uterine cancer in women having morcellation were similar before and after the 2014 FDA guidance, and containment bags were used in only a small proportion of women with uterine cancer, according to findings from a research group led by Jason D. Wright, MD, of the division of gynecologic oncology at Columbia University, New York.

“Despite warnings from professional societies and regulatory agencies, as well as intense public scrutiny after the FDA warnings, the majority of morcellated uterine cancers occurred with uncontained laparoscopic power morcellation,” Dr. Wright and associates wrote, adding that the findings have important policy implications. First, efforts are needed to ensure morcellation is avoided in women with pathologic abnormalities. Second, despite regulatory approval, the safety and efficacy of containment bags remain uncertain, and the use and outcomes of these devices should be monitored closely.

The authors noted that laparoscopic power morcellation with a containment bag actually carries a small but significant increase in the risk of complications, compared with uncontained morcellation.

The study

Drawing on the Premier Healthcare Database, the researchers looked at deidentified patients aged 18 years or older who underwent laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy from 2010 to 2018. The largest age group having the procedure consisted of women aged 40-49.

Patients were stratified based on use of laparoscopic power morcellators.

The cohort was further stratified as either pre–FDA guidance (2010 quarter 1 to 2014 quarter 1) or post–FDA guidance (2014 quarter 2 to 2018 quarter 2).

In the final cohort of 67,115 patients, laparoscopic power morcellator use decreased from 66.7% in 2013 quarter 4 to 13.3% by 2018 quarter 2. The likelihood of using this device decreased by 9.5% for each quarter elapsed in the post–FDA warning period (risk ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.91).

In other findings, containment bag use rose from 5.2% in 2013 quarter 4 to 15.2% by 2018 quarter 2. The likelihood of containment bag use rose by 3% for each quarter elapsed in the post–FDA warning period (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).

Among women who underwent surgery with laparoscopic power morcellator use, uterine cancers or sarcomas were identified in 54 (0.17%) before the FDA guidance, compared with 7 (0.12%) after the guidance (P = .45).

Containment bags were used in 11.1% of women with uterine cancers or sarcomas before the FDA guidance, compared with 14.3% after the guidance (P = .12). The perioperative complication rate was 3.3% among women who had laparoscopic power morcellator use without a containment bag, compared with 4.5% (P = .001) in those with a containment bag (adjusted RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.12-1.64).

A related editorial argued that the backlash against power morcellation was unwarranted and an example of “reactionary medicine.”

Ben A. Abdu, MD, and Cameron Lowry, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, noted that with the known advantages of laparoscopy over laparotomy – decreased blood loss, decreased pain, and fewer wound complications and infections – it is of paramount importance to continue to offer minimally invasive surgery whenever possible. After the FDA raised safety concerns, there was a rise in the rate of open abdominal hysterectomy, which was accompanied by an increase in surgical morbidity. “Perhaps for now we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water,” they wrote.

The editorialists pointed out that any surgery may entail unintended complications. “It is also important to remember that there is a risk of dissemination of malignant tissue whether or not power morcellation is used, and it has even been observed in laparotomy,” they stated, noting that bag rupture and tissue spillage can occur even when the containment bag remains intact.

The downward trend in the use of power morcellators observed by Dr. Wright’s group is of serious concern, the commentators added, especially because the FDA communication was made in response to a rare occurrence and possibly resting on an overestimation of risk. “Based on their review of the medical literature at the time, the FDA cited prevalence estimates of 1 in 352 for any uterine sarcoma and 1 in 498 for leiomyosarcoma,” they wrote. “Many authors have expressed concern that the FDA data review was overestimated.” For example, they cite a meta-analysis using prospective data in which the prevalence of occult leiomyosarcoma was estimated at 1 in 8,300. Despite this extremely low prevalence, there has been an almost total nationwide hospital moratorium on the use of power morcellation, which will likely continue. Some manufacturers have ceased or limited production, distribution, and sales of these devices, they noted.

According to Dr. Michael L. Nimaroff, MD, however, chief of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., the general post–FDA-guidance backlash did not have much effect on expert practitioners in this surgical field. “Those of us who specialize in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, which has many benefits for the patients, never pivoted,” he told this news organization. “We continued to perform it but more conscientiously and with more concern for safety.”

As for morcellator use, added Dr. Nimaroff, specialists were so accustomed to doing these surgeries before the containment systems were made available that they don’t miss the power morcellator. “We actually retrieve tissue manually, and most of our morcellations, if they’re not contained manually, are retrieved vaginally or through a slightly bigger incision. So patients still benefit from minimally invasive surgery, and in some cases these techniques actually shorten the operation.”

This study received no external funding. Dr. Wright is editor in chief of Obstetrics & Gynecology. He reported royalties from UpToDate and has received research support from Merck. Coauthor Dr. Hou has served as a consultant for Foundation Medicine and Natera. Dr. Abdu and Dr. Lowry disclosed no competing interests, as did Dr. Nimaroff.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine given around the time women have surgery for precancerous cervical lesions might lead to a reduction in the risk of lesions returning, as well as other HPV-related diseases, but the effects of this remain unclear.

The authors of the new study, published in The BMJ, explained that women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) have a “lifelong residual high risk of cervical cancer and other malignancies related to HPV infection,” and some research suggests that giving a preventive HPV vaccine alongside treatment for CIN might help to “reduce the risk in these women.”

HPV vaccination is highly effective at preventing the development of precancerous cervical lesions, CIN, and in the U.K., HPV vaccination is offered to girls and boys around the age of 12 or 13.

Eluned Hughes, head of information and engagement at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, said: “Recent evidence has found that cases of cervical cancer have fallen 87% since the introduction of the HPV vaccine program in U.K. schools in 2008.”

“However, women over the age of 27, for whom the vaccine was not available, remain at increased risk of cervical cancer,” she highlighted.
 

Significant risk of bias and scarcity of data

In the study, researchers set out to explore the efficacy of HPV vaccination on the risk of HPV infection and recurrent diseases related to HPV infection in individuals undergoing local surgical treatment of preinvasive genital disease.

The systematic review and meta-analysis, led by researchers at Imperial College London, screened data from PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 31, 2021.

The researchers analyzed the results of 18 studies – two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 12 observational studies, and four post-hoc analyses of RCTs.

The authors said that the two RCTs were classified as low risk of bias, while in the observational studies and post-hoc analyses, risk of bias was moderate for seven, serious for seven, and critical for two. Average length of follow-up was 36 months.

There was a reduction of 57% in the risk of recurrence of high-grade pre-invasive disease (CIN2+) in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with those who were not vaccinated. “The effect estimate was “even more pronounced” – a relative 74% reduction – when the risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was assessed for disease related to the two high-risk HPV types – HPV16 and HPV18,” explained the authors.

However, the researchers noted that these effects are unclear because of the “scarcity of data” and the “moderate to high overall risk of bias” of the available studies.
 

Quality of evidence inconclusive – more trials needed

With regards to CIN3, the risk of recurrence of was also reduced in patients who were vaccinated, but there was a high level of uncertainty about the quality of this evidence, cautioned the authors.

Evidence was also lacking on the benefit of HPV vaccination for recurrence of vulvar, vaginal, and anal lesions, as well as genital warts.

Analysis of the post-hoc studies from randomized controlled trial data with historic vaccination at randomization before the development of the disease reported inconsistent results, the authors said.

Several study limitations were acknowledged by the authors, including that most of the studies were observational, of low to moderate quality, and with relatively short follow-up times, which they pointed out prevented assessment of long-term effects. In addition, the average age of participants was not provided in most studies, and factors such as smoking – associated with a higher risk of recurrence – were not controlled for in many studies.

“HPV vaccination might reduce the risk of recurrence of CIN, in particular when related to HPV16 or HPV18, in women treated with local excision,” they concluded. However, they cautioned that “quality of evidence indicated that the data were inconclusive.”

“Large, appropriately powered, randomized controlled trials are required to establish the effectiveness of adjuvant HPV vaccination at the time of local surgical treatment of CIN,” they recommended.

“Given that the incidence of recurrence of high-grade disease is low in quality assured national screening programs, such as in the United Kingdom, absolute risks and a cost effectiveness analysis would be important in determining the implementation strategy of HPV vaccination after treatment,” the authors said.

Ms. Hughes said that the charity was pleased to see emerging research into the value of using the HPV vaccine to prevent the recurrence of cervical cell changes. She said that the charity looks forward to seeing “further large-scale studies into the effectiveness of this method.”

In the meantime, the charity encourages all women and other people with a cervix to attend their cervical screening and for young people to have the HPV vaccination when invited, as “these are the best tools we currently have to prevent cervical cancer,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine given around the time women have surgery for precancerous cervical lesions might lead to a reduction in the risk of lesions returning, as well as other HPV-related diseases, but the effects of this remain unclear.

The authors of the new study, published in The BMJ, explained that women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) have a “lifelong residual high risk of cervical cancer and other malignancies related to HPV infection,” and some research suggests that giving a preventive HPV vaccine alongside treatment for CIN might help to “reduce the risk in these women.”

HPV vaccination is highly effective at preventing the development of precancerous cervical lesions, CIN, and in the U.K., HPV vaccination is offered to girls and boys around the age of 12 or 13.

Eluned Hughes, head of information and engagement at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, said: “Recent evidence has found that cases of cervical cancer have fallen 87% since the introduction of the HPV vaccine program in U.K. schools in 2008.”

“However, women over the age of 27, for whom the vaccine was not available, remain at increased risk of cervical cancer,” she highlighted.
 

Significant risk of bias and scarcity of data

In the study, researchers set out to explore the efficacy of HPV vaccination on the risk of HPV infection and recurrent diseases related to HPV infection in individuals undergoing local surgical treatment of preinvasive genital disease.

The systematic review and meta-analysis, led by researchers at Imperial College London, screened data from PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 31, 2021.

The researchers analyzed the results of 18 studies – two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 12 observational studies, and four post-hoc analyses of RCTs.

The authors said that the two RCTs were classified as low risk of bias, while in the observational studies and post-hoc analyses, risk of bias was moderate for seven, serious for seven, and critical for two. Average length of follow-up was 36 months.

There was a reduction of 57% in the risk of recurrence of high-grade pre-invasive disease (CIN2+) in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with those who were not vaccinated. “The effect estimate was “even more pronounced” – a relative 74% reduction – when the risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was assessed for disease related to the two high-risk HPV types – HPV16 and HPV18,” explained the authors.

However, the researchers noted that these effects are unclear because of the “scarcity of data” and the “moderate to high overall risk of bias” of the available studies.
 

Quality of evidence inconclusive – more trials needed

With regards to CIN3, the risk of recurrence of was also reduced in patients who were vaccinated, but there was a high level of uncertainty about the quality of this evidence, cautioned the authors.

Evidence was also lacking on the benefit of HPV vaccination for recurrence of vulvar, vaginal, and anal lesions, as well as genital warts.

Analysis of the post-hoc studies from randomized controlled trial data with historic vaccination at randomization before the development of the disease reported inconsistent results, the authors said.

Several study limitations were acknowledged by the authors, including that most of the studies were observational, of low to moderate quality, and with relatively short follow-up times, which they pointed out prevented assessment of long-term effects. In addition, the average age of participants was not provided in most studies, and factors such as smoking – associated with a higher risk of recurrence – were not controlled for in many studies.

“HPV vaccination might reduce the risk of recurrence of CIN, in particular when related to HPV16 or HPV18, in women treated with local excision,” they concluded. However, they cautioned that “quality of evidence indicated that the data were inconclusive.”

“Large, appropriately powered, randomized controlled trials are required to establish the effectiveness of adjuvant HPV vaccination at the time of local surgical treatment of CIN,” they recommended.

“Given that the incidence of recurrence of high-grade disease is low in quality assured national screening programs, such as in the United Kingdom, absolute risks and a cost effectiveness analysis would be important in determining the implementation strategy of HPV vaccination after treatment,” the authors said.

Ms. Hughes said that the charity was pleased to see emerging research into the value of using the HPV vaccine to prevent the recurrence of cervical cell changes. She said that the charity looks forward to seeing “further large-scale studies into the effectiveness of this method.”

In the meantime, the charity encourages all women and other people with a cervix to attend their cervical screening and for young people to have the HPV vaccination when invited, as “these are the best tools we currently have to prevent cervical cancer,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine given around the time women have surgery for precancerous cervical lesions might lead to a reduction in the risk of lesions returning, as well as other HPV-related diseases, but the effects of this remain unclear.

The authors of the new study, published in The BMJ, explained that women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) have a “lifelong residual high risk of cervical cancer and other malignancies related to HPV infection,” and some research suggests that giving a preventive HPV vaccine alongside treatment for CIN might help to “reduce the risk in these women.”

HPV vaccination is highly effective at preventing the development of precancerous cervical lesions, CIN, and in the U.K., HPV vaccination is offered to girls and boys around the age of 12 or 13.

Eluned Hughes, head of information and engagement at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, said: “Recent evidence has found that cases of cervical cancer have fallen 87% since the introduction of the HPV vaccine program in U.K. schools in 2008.”

“However, women over the age of 27, for whom the vaccine was not available, remain at increased risk of cervical cancer,” she highlighted.
 

Significant risk of bias and scarcity of data

In the study, researchers set out to explore the efficacy of HPV vaccination on the risk of HPV infection and recurrent diseases related to HPV infection in individuals undergoing local surgical treatment of preinvasive genital disease.

The systematic review and meta-analysis, led by researchers at Imperial College London, screened data from PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 31, 2021.

The researchers analyzed the results of 18 studies – two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 12 observational studies, and four post-hoc analyses of RCTs.

The authors said that the two RCTs were classified as low risk of bias, while in the observational studies and post-hoc analyses, risk of bias was moderate for seven, serious for seven, and critical for two. Average length of follow-up was 36 months.

There was a reduction of 57% in the risk of recurrence of high-grade pre-invasive disease (CIN2+) in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with those who were not vaccinated. “The effect estimate was “even more pronounced” – a relative 74% reduction – when the risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was assessed for disease related to the two high-risk HPV types – HPV16 and HPV18,” explained the authors.

However, the researchers noted that these effects are unclear because of the “scarcity of data” and the “moderate to high overall risk of bias” of the available studies.
 

Quality of evidence inconclusive – more trials needed

With regards to CIN3, the risk of recurrence of was also reduced in patients who were vaccinated, but there was a high level of uncertainty about the quality of this evidence, cautioned the authors.

Evidence was also lacking on the benefit of HPV vaccination for recurrence of vulvar, vaginal, and anal lesions, as well as genital warts.

Analysis of the post-hoc studies from randomized controlled trial data with historic vaccination at randomization before the development of the disease reported inconsistent results, the authors said.

Several study limitations were acknowledged by the authors, including that most of the studies were observational, of low to moderate quality, and with relatively short follow-up times, which they pointed out prevented assessment of long-term effects. In addition, the average age of participants was not provided in most studies, and factors such as smoking – associated with a higher risk of recurrence – were not controlled for in many studies.

“HPV vaccination might reduce the risk of recurrence of CIN, in particular when related to HPV16 or HPV18, in women treated with local excision,” they concluded. However, they cautioned that “quality of evidence indicated that the data were inconclusive.”

“Large, appropriately powered, randomized controlled trials are required to establish the effectiveness of adjuvant HPV vaccination at the time of local surgical treatment of CIN,” they recommended.

“Given that the incidence of recurrence of high-grade disease is low in quality assured national screening programs, such as in the United Kingdom, absolute risks and a cost effectiveness analysis would be important in determining the implementation strategy of HPV vaccination after treatment,” the authors said.

Ms. Hughes said that the charity was pleased to see emerging research into the value of using the HPV vaccine to prevent the recurrence of cervical cell changes. She said that the charity looks forward to seeing “further large-scale studies into the effectiveness of this method.”

In the meantime, the charity encourages all women and other people with a cervix to attend their cervical screening and for young people to have the HPV vaccination when invited, as “these are the best tools we currently have to prevent cervical cancer,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) has changed the recommendation for vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV).

From the available evidence, SAGE has concluded that a single dose of vaccine offers solid protection against HPV, comparable to that achieved with two-dose schedules.

This could be a “game-changer for the prevention of the disease,” as it would allow “more doses of the life-saving jab reach more girls,” the WHO declared in a press release.

SAGE recommends updating HPV dose schedules as follows:

• One- or two-dose schedule for the primary target of girls aged 9-14 years.
• One- or two-dose schedule for young women aged 15-20.
• Two doses with a 6-month interval for women older than 21.

The HPV vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of HPV serotypes 16 and 18, which cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer, said Alejandro Cravioto, MD, PhD, SAGE chair, in a statement.

“SAGE urges all countries to introduce HPV vaccines and prioritize multi-age cohort catch up of missed and older cohorts of girls. These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated and thus preventing them from having cervical cancer and all its consequences over the course of their lifetimes,” he added.

For individuals who are immunocompromised, including those with HIV, three doses of the vaccine should be given if feasible, and if not, then at least two doses. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of a single dose in this group, the advisory group noted.
 

Policy makers need to make changes

Now that the WHO has deemed that one dose of HPV vaccine is sufficient, policy makers should make changes, say experts in a recent editorial comment published in The Lancet Oncology.

“Policy makers should consider modifying their HPV immunization schedules for girls aged 9-14 years from a two-dose regimen to a one-dose regimen,” wrote Jeff D’Souza, PhD, Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont., and David Nderitu, PhD, Egerton University, Nakuru County, Kenya.

Policy makers also need to consider reorienting their efforts on cervical cancer screening and treatment, and they should ensure that all girls globally have access to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, they add.

The editorialists also make a radical proposal.

Existing supply constraints of the HPV vaccine at the country level are expected to continue for the next 3 years, and the vast majority of new cervical cancer cases and related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

To overcome these problems, they suggest that “high-income countries that currently offer two-dose regimens to girls aged 9-14 years should consider opting for a one-dose vaccination schedule, and give any excess of vaccines to countries in greater need of them.”
 

Two doses in high-income countries

But it is unclear whether high-income countries are ready to move to a one-dose schedule.

Approached for comment, Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, told this news organization that while he can’t say for certain, he suspects that the United States will be slower to accept this recommendation for a single dose of HPV vaccine “as a component of a ‘standard-of-care’ approach.”

However, it “might formally acknowledge that if an individual/parent will only accept a single vaccine dose (or ultimately refuses to return for a recommended second dose), this will be considered a favorable outcome, both for the individual and society.

“I do not know if regulatory bodies in the United States will accept the existing studies performed to address the one-dose vaccination strategy to rather dramatically change the approach in our country,” he said. “The issue would be that if a single dose was stated to be a clinically acceptable option in the United States, it would rapidly become the standard approach, and the regulators would want to be as certain as possible that this would not have a negative effect on what is now recognized to be a remarkably safe and effective cancer prevention effort.”

Another expert who was approached for comment, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “In higher-resourced countries, two doses are still preferred, as they are more effective than one.

“The modeling on which the SAGE recommendation is based is all from studies in LMICs and other modeling studies,” she added.

At present, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a two-dose schedule of HPV vaccines for individuals who receive the first dose before their 15th birthday. The three-dose schedule is recommended for those who receive the first dose on or after their 15th birthday and for people with certain immunocompromising conditions.

Studies have shown that two doses of HPV vaccine given to children aged 9-14 years provide as good or better protection than three doses given to older adolescents or young adults.

But even with a two-dose schedule, the WHO reports that uptake of the vaccine has been slow, and coverage is much lower than their 90% target. In 2020, global coverage with two doses was only 13%.

Factors that have influenced the slow uptake and low coverage of HPV vaccines include supply challenges, programmatic challenges, and costs related to delivering a two-dose regimen to older girls who are not typically included in childhood vaccination programs. The relatively high cost of HPV vaccines has also been problematic, particularly for middle-income countries.
 

Trials of one-dose schedules

The one-dose vaccine schedule has garnered a lot of interest, with several studies showing efficacy.

The KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya, showed that a single dose of the HPV vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens. Vaccine efficacy was 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and monovalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers noted.

A study in India found that efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% for the single dose, 93.1% for the two-dose schedule, and 93.3% for the three-dose series.

Commenting on this trial in India in a recent interview with this news organization, Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, said the findings from India would need “to be confirmed by other studies.” The results were nonetheless “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”

Speaking at the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases, he emphasized that at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. HPV vaccination coverage is low in France (it is estimated that the rate is 23.7%, placing the country 28th of 31 countries in Europe), and he recommended continuing with the two- or three-dose schedule for the time being.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
 

Ethics of the vaccine

In their editorial, Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu note that there are ethical considerations with the HPV vaccine that can “help guide deliberations, covering nonmaleficence, beneficence, health equity, stewardship, and solidarity.”

It would be inequitable and unjustifiable, they write, to offer a two-dose regimen to girls aged 9-14 years without also introducing multi-age cohort catch-up campaigns or programs for women who do not have access. “When it comes to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, no woman or girl should be left behind,” they say.

To achieve the goal of eliminating cervical cancer, “countries must ensure that 90% of girls are vaccinated, 70% of women are screened, and 90% of women with precancerous lesions receive treatment and care,” they write. “Given resource constraints, particularly in low-middle income countries, policy makers have a responsibility to ensure that resources are used in an optimal manner that promotes the right to health of all individuals.”

Thus, countries that are lagging far behind in cervical cancer education, screening, and treatment should consider opting for a one-dose regimen for girls aged 9-14 years, as well as using additional resources to close the gap in these other areas.

Dr. Markman has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen; he is also a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology with the Markamn on Oncology video column. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) has changed the recommendation for vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV).

From the available evidence, SAGE has concluded that a single dose of vaccine offers solid protection against HPV, comparable to that achieved with two-dose schedules.

This could be a “game-changer for the prevention of the disease,” as it would allow “more doses of the life-saving jab reach more girls,” the WHO declared in a press release.

SAGE recommends updating HPV dose schedules as follows:

• One- or two-dose schedule for the primary target of girls aged 9-14 years.
• One- or two-dose schedule for young women aged 15-20.
• Two doses with a 6-month interval for women older than 21.

The HPV vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of HPV serotypes 16 and 18, which cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer, said Alejandro Cravioto, MD, PhD, SAGE chair, in a statement.

“SAGE urges all countries to introduce HPV vaccines and prioritize multi-age cohort catch up of missed and older cohorts of girls. These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated and thus preventing them from having cervical cancer and all its consequences over the course of their lifetimes,” he added.

For individuals who are immunocompromised, including those with HIV, three doses of the vaccine should be given if feasible, and if not, then at least two doses. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of a single dose in this group, the advisory group noted.
 

Policy makers need to make changes

Now that the WHO has deemed that one dose of HPV vaccine is sufficient, policy makers should make changes, say experts in a recent editorial comment published in The Lancet Oncology.

“Policy makers should consider modifying their HPV immunization schedules for girls aged 9-14 years from a two-dose regimen to a one-dose regimen,” wrote Jeff D’Souza, PhD, Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont., and David Nderitu, PhD, Egerton University, Nakuru County, Kenya.

Policy makers also need to consider reorienting their efforts on cervical cancer screening and treatment, and they should ensure that all girls globally have access to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, they add.

The editorialists also make a radical proposal.

Existing supply constraints of the HPV vaccine at the country level are expected to continue for the next 3 years, and the vast majority of new cervical cancer cases and related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

To overcome these problems, they suggest that “high-income countries that currently offer two-dose regimens to girls aged 9-14 years should consider opting for a one-dose vaccination schedule, and give any excess of vaccines to countries in greater need of them.”
 

Two doses in high-income countries

But it is unclear whether high-income countries are ready to move to a one-dose schedule.

Approached for comment, Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, told this news organization that while he can’t say for certain, he suspects that the United States will be slower to accept this recommendation for a single dose of HPV vaccine “as a component of a ‘standard-of-care’ approach.”

However, it “might formally acknowledge that if an individual/parent will only accept a single vaccine dose (or ultimately refuses to return for a recommended second dose), this will be considered a favorable outcome, both for the individual and society.

“I do not know if regulatory bodies in the United States will accept the existing studies performed to address the one-dose vaccination strategy to rather dramatically change the approach in our country,” he said. “The issue would be that if a single dose was stated to be a clinically acceptable option in the United States, it would rapidly become the standard approach, and the regulators would want to be as certain as possible that this would not have a negative effect on what is now recognized to be a remarkably safe and effective cancer prevention effort.”

Another expert who was approached for comment, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “In higher-resourced countries, two doses are still preferred, as they are more effective than one.

“The modeling on which the SAGE recommendation is based is all from studies in LMICs and other modeling studies,” she added.

At present, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a two-dose schedule of HPV vaccines for individuals who receive the first dose before their 15th birthday. The three-dose schedule is recommended for those who receive the first dose on or after their 15th birthday and for people with certain immunocompromising conditions.

Studies have shown that two doses of HPV vaccine given to children aged 9-14 years provide as good or better protection than three doses given to older adolescents or young adults.

But even with a two-dose schedule, the WHO reports that uptake of the vaccine has been slow, and coverage is much lower than their 90% target. In 2020, global coverage with two doses was only 13%.

Factors that have influenced the slow uptake and low coverage of HPV vaccines include supply challenges, programmatic challenges, and costs related to delivering a two-dose regimen to older girls who are not typically included in childhood vaccination programs. The relatively high cost of HPV vaccines has also been problematic, particularly for middle-income countries.
 

Trials of one-dose schedules

The one-dose vaccine schedule has garnered a lot of interest, with several studies showing efficacy.

The KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya, showed that a single dose of the HPV vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens. Vaccine efficacy was 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and monovalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers noted.

A study in India found that efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% for the single dose, 93.1% for the two-dose schedule, and 93.3% for the three-dose series.

Commenting on this trial in India in a recent interview with this news organization, Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, said the findings from India would need “to be confirmed by other studies.” The results were nonetheless “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”

Speaking at the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases, he emphasized that at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. HPV vaccination coverage is low in France (it is estimated that the rate is 23.7%, placing the country 28th of 31 countries in Europe), and he recommended continuing with the two- or three-dose schedule for the time being.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
 

Ethics of the vaccine

In their editorial, Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu note that there are ethical considerations with the HPV vaccine that can “help guide deliberations, covering nonmaleficence, beneficence, health equity, stewardship, and solidarity.”

It would be inequitable and unjustifiable, they write, to offer a two-dose regimen to girls aged 9-14 years without also introducing multi-age cohort catch-up campaigns or programs for women who do not have access. “When it comes to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, no woman or girl should be left behind,” they say.

To achieve the goal of eliminating cervical cancer, “countries must ensure that 90% of girls are vaccinated, 70% of women are screened, and 90% of women with precancerous lesions receive treatment and care,” they write. “Given resource constraints, particularly in low-middle income countries, policy makers have a responsibility to ensure that resources are used in an optimal manner that promotes the right to health of all individuals.”

Thus, countries that are lagging far behind in cervical cancer education, screening, and treatment should consider opting for a one-dose regimen for girls aged 9-14 years, as well as using additional resources to close the gap in these other areas.

Dr. Markman has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen; he is also a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology with the Markamn on Oncology video column. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) has changed the recommendation for vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV).

From the available evidence, SAGE has concluded that a single dose of vaccine offers solid protection against HPV, comparable to that achieved with two-dose schedules.

This could be a “game-changer for the prevention of the disease,” as it would allow “more doses of the life-saving jab reach more girls,” the WHO declared in a press release.

SAGE recommends updating HPV dose schedules as follows:

• One- or two-dose schedule for the primary target of girls aged 9-14 years.
• One- or two-dose schedule for young women aged 15-20.
• Two doses with a 6-month interval for women older than 21.

The HPV vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of HPV serotypes 16 and 18, which cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer, said Alejandro Cravioto, MD, PhD, SAGE chair, in a statement.

“SAGE urges all countries to introduce HPV vaccines and prioritize multi-age cohort catch up of missed and older cohorts of girls. These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated and thus preventing them from having cervical cancer and all its consequences over the course of their lifetimes,” he added.

For individuals who are immunocompromised, including those with HIV, three doses of the vaccine should be given if feasible, and if not, then at least two doses. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of a single dose in this group, the advisory group noted.
 

Policy makers need to make changes

Now that the WHO has deemed that one dose of HPV vaccine is sufficient, policy makers should make changes, say experts in a recent editorial comment published in The Lancet Oncology.

“Policy makers should consider modifying their HPV immunization schedules for girls aged 9-14 years from a two-dose regimen to a one-dose regimen,” wrote Jeff D’Souza, PhD, Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont., and David Nderitu, PhD, Egerton University, Nakuru County, Kenya.

Policy makers also need to consider reorienting their efforts on cervical cancer screening and treatment, and they should ensure that all girls globally have access to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, they add.

The editorialists also make a radical proposal.

Existing supply constraints of the HPV vaccine at the country level are expected to continue for the next 3 years, and the vast majority of new cervical cancer cases and related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

To overcome these problems, they suggest that “high-income countries that currently offer two-dose regimens to girls aged 9-14 years should consider opting for a one-dose vaccination schedule, and give any excess of vaccines to countries in greater need of them.”
 

Two doses in high-income countries

But it is unclear whether high-income countries are ready to move to a one-dose schedule.

Approached for comment, Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, told this news organization that while he can’t say for certain, he suspects that the United States will be slower to accept this recommendation for a single dose of HPV vaccine “as a component of a ‘standard-of-care’ approach.”

However, it “might formally acknowledge that if an individual/parent will only accept a single vaccine dose (or ultimately refuses to return for a recommended second dose), this will be considered a favorable outcome, both for the individual and society.

“I do not know if regulatory bodies in the United States will accept the existing studies performed to address the one-dose vaccination strategy to rather dramatically change the approach in our country,” he said. “The issue would be that if a single dose was stated to be a clinically acceptable option in the United States, it would rapidly become the standard approach, and the regulators would want to be as certain as possible that this would not have a negative effect on what is now recognized to be a remarkably safe and effective cancer prevention effort.”

Another expert who was approached for comment, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “In higher-resourced countries, two doses are still preferred, as they are more effective than one.

“The modeling on which the SAGE recommendation is based is all from studies in LMICs and other modeling studies,” she added.

At present, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a two-dose schedule of HPV vaccines for individuals who receive the first dose before their 15th birthday. The three-dose schedule is recommended for those who receive the first dose on or after their 15th birthday and for people with certain immunocompromising conditions.

Studies have shown that two doses of HPV vaccine given to children aged 9-14 years provide as good or better protection than three doses given to older adolescents or young adults.

But even with a two-dose schedule, the WHO reports that uptake of the vaccine has been slow, and coverage is much lower than their 90% target. In 2020, global coverage with two doses was only 13%.

Factors that have influenced the slow uptake and low coverage of HPV vaccines include supply challenges, programmatic challenges, and costs related to delivering a two-dose regimen to older girls who are not typically included in childhood vaccination programs. The relatively high cost of HPV vaccines has also been problematic, particularly for middle-income countries.
 

Trials of one-dose schedules

The one-dose vaccine schedule has garnered a lot of interest, with several studies showing efficacy.

The KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya, showed that a single dose of the HPV vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens. Vaccine efficacy was 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and monovalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers noted.

A study in India found that efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% for the single dose, 93.1% for the two-dose schedule, and 93.3% for the three-dose series.

Commenting on this trial in India in a recent interview with this news organization, Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, said the findings from India would need “to be confirmed by other studies.” The results were nonetheless “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”

Speaking at the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases, he emphasized that at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. HPV vaccination coverage is low in France (it is estimated that the rate is 23.7%, placing the country 28th of 31 countries in Europe), and he recommended continuing with the two- or three-dose schedule for the time being.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
 

Ethics of the vaccine

In their editorial, Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu note that there are ethical considerations with the HPV vaccine that can “help guide deliberations, covering nonmaleficence, beneficence, health equity, stewardship, and solidarity.”

It would be inequitable and unjustifiable, they write, to offer a two-dose regimen to girls aged 9-14 years without also introducing multi-age cohort catch-up campaigns or programs for women who do not have access. “When it comes to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, no woman or girl should be left behind,” they say.

To achieve the goal of eliminating cervical cancer, “countries must ensure that 90% of girls are vaccinated, 70% of women are screened, and 90% of women with precancerous lesions receive treatment and care,” they write. “Given resource constraints, particularly in low-middle income countries, policy makers have a responsibility to ensure that resources are used in an optimal manner that promotes the right to health of all individuals.”

Thus, countries that are lagging far behind in cervical cancer education, screening, and treatment should consider opting for a one-dose regimen for girls aged 9-14 years, as well as using additional resources to close the gap in these other areas.

Dr. Markman has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen; he is also a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology with the Markamn on Oncology video column. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large case-control study finds the range of cancer types associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is broader than previously determined from prior analyses showing associations with breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. The finding, published in JAMA Oncology suggests a possible broader clinical relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing.

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 were found to be associated with biliary tract cancer, in BRCA2 with esophageal cancer, and in BRCA1/2 with gastric cancer.

“The results suggest the range of cancer types associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is likely broader than that determined from previous analysis of largely European ancestry cohorts,” wrote authors who were led by Yukihide Momozawa, DVM, PhD, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Japan.

“These risk association findings, together with our analysis of an association with family history of cancer and clinical phenotypes, are relevant for developing and adapting guidelines about genetic testing, treatment options, and treatability with PARP [poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase] inhibitors for each cancer type,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Momozawa and associates conducted a large-scale sequencing study across 14 common cancer types in 63,828 patients (mean age 64 years, 42% female) and 37,086 controls on data drawn from a Japanese nationwide biobank between April 2003 and March 2018. They estimated the risk of each cancer type and determined clinical characteristics associated with pathogenic variant carrier status, while also investigating the utility of family history in detecting patients with pathogenic variants.

Three hundred fifteen pathogenic variants were identified. An odds ratios of greater than 4.0 (with P < 1 × 10−4 as the threshold of significance) for the pathogenic variants were found for biliary tract cancer (OR, 17.4; 95% confidence interval, 5.8-51.9) in BRCA1, esophageal cancer (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.9-11.0) in BRCA2, and gastric cancer (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.6-10.5) in BRCA1, and (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.1-7.1) in BRCA2. Two other cancer types were found to be associated with BRCA1, and four other cancer types with BRCA2. Enrichment of carrier patients was shown in biliary tract, female breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers in accordance with increased numbers of reported cancer types in relatives.

Male patients with breast cancer had a very high carrier frequency of pathogenic variants in BRCA2 (18.9%), but not BRCA1 (1.89%). Patients with ovarian cancer showed the next highest proportion (BRCA1, 4.86%; BRCA2, 3.42%). Frequency exceeding 1% was seen for several other cancer types (two cancer types for BRCA1, four cancer types for BRCA2). More than one cancer types was identified in 4,128 patients (6.3%). Carrier frequency of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 was 0.44% with one cancer type, 0.85% with two cancer types, and 0.69% with three cancer types. It was 0.97%, 1.40%, and 1.74%, respectively, in BRCA2.

“The results of this large-scale registry-based case-control study suggest that pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were associated with the risk of seven cancer types. These results indicate broader clinical relevance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing,” the authors wrote.

PARP inhibitors were developed based on the mechanism in BRCA1 and BRCA2 of homologous recombination repair defects associated with pathogenic variants. PARP inhibitors have been found to have therapeutic efficacy also in pathogenic variants found to be enriched in prostate and pancreatic cancers. While risk for additional cancer types (for example, biliary tract cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, esophageal cancer, and stomach cancer) has been reported after analyzing family members for the presence of pathogenic variants and performing case-control analyses, evidence for an association with these cancer types has not been considered sufficient for them to be adopted into clinical management guidelines, the authors wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Momozawa said that BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing should be expanded in Japan. “But further studies are needed to reveal how much. If a clinical trial of a PARP inhibitor for these three cancer types reveals its clinical utility, the importance of this expansion will increase.”

Dr. Momozawa and associates state that while their selection of controls without a family history of cancer affects the generalizability of the study results, the estimated cumulative risks were comparable with those based on prospective cohorts, suggesting the study design did not greatly affect the results.

A large case-control study finds the range of cancer types associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is broader than previously determined from prior analyses showing associations with breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. The finding, published in JAMA Oncology suggests a possible broader clinical relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing.

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 were found to be associated with biliary tract cancer, in BRCA2 with esophageal cancer, and in BRCA1/2 with gastric cancer.

“The results suggest the range of cancer types associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is likely broader than that determined from previous analysis of largely European ancestry cohorts,” wrote authors who were led by Yukihide Momozawa, DVM, PhD, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Japan.

“These risk association findings, together with our analysis of an association with family history of cancer and clinical phenotypes, are relevant for developing and adapting guidelines about genetic testing, treatment options, and treatability with PARP [poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase] inhibitors for each cancer type,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Momozawa and associates conducted a large-scale sequencing study across 14 common cancer types in 63,828 patients (mean age 64 years, 42% female) and 37,086 controls on data drawn from a Japanese nationwide biobank between April 2003 and March 2018. They estimated the risk of each cancer type and determined clinical characteristics associated with pathogenic variant carrier status, while also investigating the utility of family history in detecting patients with pathogenic variants.

Three hundred fifteen pathogenic variants were identified. An odds ratios of greater than 4.0 (with P < 1 × 10−4 as the threshold of significance) for the pathogenic variants were found for biliary tract cancer (OR, 17.4; 95% confidence interval, 5.8-51.9) in BRCA1, esophageal cancer (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.9-11.0) in BRCA2, and gastric cancer (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.6-10.5) in BRCA1, and (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.1-7.1) in BRCA2. Two other cancer types were found to be associated with BRCA1, and four other cancer types with BRCA2. Enrichment of carrier patients was shown in biliary tract, female breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers in accordance with increased numbers of reported cancer types in relatives.

Male patients with breast cancer had a very high carrier frequency of pathogenic variants in BRCA2 (18.9%), but not BRCA1 (1.89%). Patients with ovarian cancer showed the next highest proportion (BRCA1, 4.86%; BRCA2, 3.42%). Frequency exceeding 1% was seen for several other cancer types (two cancer types for BRCA1, four cancer types for BRCA2). More than one cancer types was identified in 4,128 patients (6.3%). Carrier frequency of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 was 0.44% with one cancer type, 0.85% with two cancer types, and 0.69% with three cancer types. It was 0.97%, 1.40%, and 1.74%, respectively, in BRCA2.

“The results of this large-scale registry-based case-control study suggest that pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were associated with the risk of seven cancer types. These results indicate broader clinical relevance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing,” the authors wrote.

PARP inhibitors were developed based on the mechanism in BRCA1 and BRCA2 of homologous recombination repair defects associated with pathogenic variants. PARP inhibitors have been found to have therapeutic efficacy also in pathogenic variants found to be enriched in prostate and pancreatic cancers. While risk for additional cancer types (for example, biliary tract cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, esophageal cancer, and stomach cancer) has been reported after analyzing family members for the presence of pathogenic variants and performing case-control analyses, evidence for an association with these cancer types has not been considered sufficient for them to be adopted into clinical management guidelines, the authors wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Momozawa said that BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing should be expanded in Japan. “But further studies are needed to reveal how much. If a clinical trial of a PARP inhibitor for these three cancer types reveals its clinical utility, the importance of this expansion will increase.”

Dr. Momozawa and associates state that while their selection of controls without a family history of cancer affects the generalizability of the study results, the estimated cumulative risks were comparable with those based on prospective cohorts, suggesting the study design did not greatly affect the results.

A large case-control study finds the range of cancer types associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is broader than previously determined from prior analyses showing associations with breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. The finding, published in JAMA Oncology suggests a possible broader clinical relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing.

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 were found to be associated with biliary tract cancer, in BRCA2 with esophageal cancer, and in BRCA1/2 with gastric cancer.

“The results suggest the range of cancer types associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is likely broader than that determined from previous analysis of largely European ancestry cohorts,” wrote authors who were led by Yukihide Momozawa, DVM, PhD, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Japan.

“These risk association findings, together with our analysis of an association with family history of cancer and clinical phenotypes, are relevant for developing and adapting guidelines about genetic testing, treatment options, and treatability with PARP [poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase] inhibitors for each cancer type,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Momozawa and associates conducted a large-scale sequencing study across 14 common cancer types in 63,828 patients (mean age 64 years, 42% female) and 37,086 controls on data drawn from a Japanese nationwide biobank between April 2003 and March 2018. They estimated the risk of each cancer type and determined clinical characteristics associated with pathogenic variant carrier status, while also investigating the utility of family history in detecting patients with pathogenic variants.

Three hundred fifteen pathogenic variants were identified. An odds ratios of greater than 4.0 (with P < 1 × 10−4 as the threshold of significance) for the pathogenic variants were found for biliary tract cancer (OR, 17.4; 95% confidence interval, 5.8-51.9) in BRCA1, esophageal cancer (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.9-11.0) in BRCA2, and gastric cancer (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.6-10.5) in BRCA1, and (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.1-7.1) in BRCA2. Two other cancer types were found to be associated with BRCA1, and four other cancer types with BRCA2. Enrichment of carrier patients was shown in biliary tract, female breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers in accordance with increased numbers of reported cancer types in relatives.

Male patients with breast cancer had a very high carrier frequency of pathogenic variants in BRCA2 (18.9%), but not BRCA1 (1.89%). Patients with ovarian cancer showed the next highest proportion (BRCA1, 4.86%; BRCA2, 3.42%). Frequency exceeding 1% was seen for several other cancer types (two cancer types for BRCA1, four cancer types for BRCA2). More than one cancer types was identified in 4,128 patients (6.3%). Carrier frequency of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 was 0.44% with one cancer type, 0.85% with two cancer types, and 0.69% with three cancer types. It was 0.97%, 1.40%, and 1.74%, respectively, in BRCA2.

“The results of this large-scale registry-based case-control study suggest that pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were associated with the risk of seven cancer types. These results indicate broader clinical relevance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing,” the authors wrote.

PARP inhibitors were developed based on the mechanism in BRCA1 and BRCA2 of homologous recombination repair defects associated with pathogenic variants. PARP inhibitors have been found to have therapeutic efficacy also in pathogenic variants found to be enriched in prostate and pancreatic cancers. While risk for additional cancer types (for example, biliary tract cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, esophageal cancer, and stomach cancer) has been reported after analyzing family members for the presence of pathogenic variants and performing case-control analyses, evidence for an association with these cancer types has not been considered sufficient for them to be adopted into clinical management guidelines, the authors wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Momozawa said that BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing should be expanded in Japan. “But further studies are needed to reveal how much. If a clinical trial of a PARP inhibitor for these three cancer types reveals its clinical utility, the importance of this expansion will increase.”

Dr. Momozawa and associates state that while their selection of controls without a family history of cancer affects the generalizability of the study results, the estimated cumulative risks were comparable with those based on prospective cohorts, suggesting the study design did not greatly affect the results.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.