Gynecologic Cancer

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

A cell phone rings in a red-brick bungalow in a village in India. A woman on the other end of the phone tells Ms. SK, a community health worker, that menstruation has started. Ms. SK guns her scooter through the dusty streets for 15 minutes in 30° C (86° F) heat.

A 32-year-old woman, waiting in the shade of a blue corrugated-iron roof, hands over a green polythene bag. Ms. SK whisks the package to the local health center and tucks it into a –20° C freezer. The following week, it will ride in dry ice to the National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health Laboratory in Mumbai for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.

The two women are participants in the world’s first community-based validation trial of cervical screening using menstrual pads.

This moment in rural India at first glance appears to have little relevance to wealthy countries such as the United States.

However, public health officials in both countries are trying to solve the same problem: how to prevent unnecessary deaths from cervical cancer by reaching women who have never or rarely been screened.

The United States has more in common with India than it may care to admit.

“In the U.S., we still have pockets of disparities that actually have incidence rates [of cervical cancer] comparable to many low- and middle-income countries,” said Vikrant Sahasrabuddhe, MBBS, DrPh, MPH, of the National Cancer Institute, where he heads the HPV and cervical cancer prevention clinical research program for the National Institutes of Health.

The incidence of cervical cancer in India is approximately 19 per 100,000 women. For the past 15 years incidence in the United States has stalled at approximately 7 per 100,000.

In India, there are no organized screening programs and most cervical cancer is regional or distant metastatic at diagnosis.

In the United States, 52% of new cases are advanced, and half of these are among women who have never or rarely been screened.

“There is a critical need for new strategies to reach this population,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said. “We absolutely have to do something out of the box creatively.”

Almost all cervical cancers are triggered by HPV, most commonly high-risk HPV-16 and HPV-18, although there are more than 200 types. HPV testing is taking over from cytology (Papanicolaou test) for secondary prevention of cervical cancer.

The trial of screening for HPV in menstrual pads that is ongoing in India was the brainchild of Atul Budukh, PhD, a government public health researcher and professor at the Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai.

Dr. Budukh’s eyes were opened to the scale of the problem when he participated in a cluster-randomized trial funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The study, published in 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 131,746 rural women in the Osmanabad district of India.

A team of researchers from India and France compared outcomes for women over 8 years after cervical screening by HPV, cytology, or visual inspection with acetic acid. The control group was usual care, where women were advised how to seek screening at local hospitals. Women who screened positive were referred for colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment.

Over the 8-year follow-up, advanced cervical cancer was found in twice as many women left to their own devices, compared with women who had HPV testing during the study (82 vs. 39; hazard ratio for HPV, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.69).

Similarly, cervical cancer deaths in the control group were nearly two times higher than among the women who were screened for HPV in the study (64 vs. 34; HR for HPV, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.83).

The study proved that rural Indian women were dying unnecessarily because they weren’t seeking cervical screening. And education wasn’t the problem.

“When we go and educate [a rural woman] about ... risk factors and the need to undergo screening, she understands it very well,” said Dr. Budukh. “She is ready to come but her priority is her bread and butter – she will lose her daily wages.”

Dr. Budukh and his team negotiated with local employers so that women could come to screening clinics, but they soon realized this wasn’t scalable.

One year after the NEJM publication, Dr. Budukh found what he was looking for.

A team of Hong Kong clinicians, headed by Sze Chuen Cesar Wong of the Hong Kong Cancer Institute, published a paper in 2010 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology showing that menstrual pads provide reliable HPV results in women with and without cervical disease.

The Hong Kong team tested sanitary napkins for HPV from 235 of their patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or condyloma acuminatum before and after treatment. Samples were compared with those from 323 women without cervical disease; for HPV in sanitary napkins the sensitivity was 82.8%, specificity was 93.1%, and positive and negative predictive values were 90% and 87.9%, respectively.

The authors pointed out that menstrual pad testing was the only truly noninvasive approach to HPV screening versus the other self-sampling methods such as tampons and cytobrushes. Also, these self-sampling tests require specialized liquid-based transport media. A menstrual pad needs only a plastic bag.

Dr. Budukh had his at-home solution for the hard-working rural women of India.

With funding from the Indian government, Dr. Budukh’s team put together a validation trial that ran from 2013 to 2016 in 18 rural villages in two separate districts: Ahmednagar and Pune.

Local health workers went house to house to recruit women and get family buy-in for this culturally delicate project. Participants were instructed to use their regular sanitary protection – most commonly a washable cloth – and told to call the health worker on the first day of menstruation. Health workers gave each woman a Ziploc bag for the pad and, for privacy, an outer polythene sac.

In Ahmednagar, all women who provided their pad also got screened with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen) by a mobile screening unit. In Pune, only the positive cases underwent HC2. Screening was also extended to anyone who requested it, but these people were not included in the final analysis.

Genomic DNA was extracted from three 5 mm–sized punches in the pad using a commercial kit, QIAamp DNA Micro, and the quality and purity of the DNA checked by Implen NanoPhotometer.

The team followed the same protocol for PCR HPV assay as the team from Hong Kong.

The results were published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention in 2018.

The concordance rate for a positive result between the menstrual pad sample and conventional HPV sampling was 98.8% for Ahmednagar and 95.2% for samples from Pune. The sensitivity for the first study was 83% and the specificity 99% – similar to that for the women in Hong Kong. The second study had lower sensitivity and specificity (67% and 88%), partly because of poor storage as a result of frequent power cuts.

The total cost per woman was $30.78.

“I was very excited when we saw the results,” Dr. Budukh recalled. “That day I couldn’t sleep ... such a wonderful result! I was excited to start the next phase immediately.”

Dr. Budukh has applied to the Indian government for funding for a larger trial involving 3,000 women. If successful, he hopes such evidence would be sufficient to convince the Indian government to make menstrual pad screening standard procedure for the 390 million women who live in India’s countryside.

Testing never-screened women for cervical cancer using menstrual pads appears to be relatively reliable, convenient, private, noninvasive, and incredibly cheap.

So who else has tried it?

The first published account of HPV in menstrual blood was a 2003 study by Tommy Tong and colleagues at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Hong Kong. The authors heralded, with lamentable optimism, “a new paradigm in cervical cancer screening.”

In the following 20 years, just six more studies appeared: two from Dr. Budukh’s field trial in India and four from hospital-based pilot studies in Hong Kong (in 2010 and 2018), South Korea (in 2016), and mainland China (in 2021). All these studies, although small, were published in top-flight journals and demonstrate high concordance between conventional high-risk HPV testing and menstrual-blood tests.

This news organization tried to find a U.S. thought-leader who had heard of the approach.

Elizabeth Fontham, MPH, DrPh, is the founding dean of the school of public health at Louisiana State University Health Center in New Orleans, and president of the American Cancer Society. Dr. Fontham said in an email that she had “no plans to evaluate the impact related to menstrual pads, but perhaps others have looked into that.”

Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, was first author on the evidence synthesis driving the current cervical cancer screening recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. When asked about menstrual pad testing for HPV, she said she had “not heard of it before.”

The USPSTF guidelines don’t mention sanitary pads but acknowledge that “self-collection may be one strategy for increasing screening rates among populations where they are currently low.”

The USPSTF methodology excludes data from countries that don’t match the United States on the Human Development Index “or [are] not applicable to U.S. clinical settings or populations.” (Presumably, data from Hong Kong and South Korea would qualify; Indian data would not.)

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe of the NCI hadn’t heard of menstrual pad testing either, but he has a different explanation for lack of interest in this approach – or, indeed, any form of self-sampling for cervical cancer screening – in the United States.

“We have not seen movement happen in this space for years. ... If there is one intervention that we can simplify, that still has not been made widely available, it is self-sampling ... [but] we don’t have [Food and Drug Administration] approval for it,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said.

“Our system, at least in the U.S., is based on industry manufacturers seeking an approval for a particular way of collection and then clinicians and clinical-guideline bodies signing on. ... For a lot of reasons industry has shied away over the past several years, so far, at least, on seeking approval for self-sampling-based approaches,” he commented.

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe aims to change that. He heads a new NCI-led initiative called “The Last Mile,” a nationwide clinical trial supported by federal agencies, industry partners, and professional societies. The goal is to validate self-sampled HPV testing as non-inferior to specimens collected by providers. The team is currently finalizing the methodology of the study, so Dr. Sahasrabuddhe could not share the self-sampling methods that will be on trial, nor the industry partners who have signed up.

The following tests are approved in the United States for physician-collected HPV screening: Hybrid Capture 2, used in the Indian studies (Qiagen); cobas HPV (Roche); Aptima (Hologic); Cervista (Hologic); and Onclarity (Becton Dickinson).

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said that, while a sanitary pad in a Ziploc bag is unlikely to make the grade for The Last Mile study, he doesn’t totally dismiss their potential and said the NCI is always open to new ideas.

“We are not supporting anybody specifically for menstrual pad-based collection device development,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said, “But if they fulfill other criteria for a small business–based grant application, they absolutely are welcome to apply for NCI funding for this.”

Said Dr. Melnikow: “Pre-COVID, the head of [the World Health Organization] said that we could eliminate cervical cancer from the globe and that we have the tools to do that now. And he’s right.”

Dr. Budukh, Dr. Melnikow, and Dr. Sahasrabuddhe disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cell phone rings in a red-brick bungalow in a village in India. A woman on the other end of the phone tells Ms. SK, a community health worker, that menstruation has started. Ms. SK guns her scooter through the dusty streets for 15 minutes in 30° C (86° F) heat.

A 32-year-old woman, waiting in the shade of a blue corrugated-iron roof, hands over a green polythene bag. Ms. SK whisks the package to the local health center and tucks it into a –20° C freezer. The following week, it will ride in dry ice to the National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health Laboratory in Mumbai for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.

The two women are participants in the world’s first community-based validation trial of cervical screening using menstrual pads.

This moment in rural India at first glance appears to have little relevance to wealthy countries such as the United States.

However, public health officials in both countries are trying to solve the same problem: how to prevent unnecessary deaths from cervical cancer by reaching women who have never or rarely been screened.

The United States has more in common with India than it may care to admit.

“In the U.S., we still have pockets of disparities that actually have incidence rates [of cervical cancer] comparable to many low- and middle-income countries,” said Vikrant Sahasrabuddhe, MBBS, DrPh, MPH, of the National Cancer Institute, where he heads the HPV and cervical cancer prevention clinical research program for the National Institutes of Health.

The incidence of cervical cancer in India is approximately 19 per 100,000 women. For the past 15 years incidence in the United States has stalled at approximately 7 per 100,000.

In India, there are no organized screening programs and most cervical cancer is regional or distant metastatic at diagnosis.

In the United States, 52% of new cases are advanced, and half of these are among women who have never or rarely been screened.

“There is a critical need for new strategies to reach this population,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said. “We absolutely have to do something out of the box creatively.”

Almost all cervical cancers are triggered by HPV, most commonly high-risk HPV-16 and HPV-18, although there are more than 200 types. HPV testing is taking over from cytology (Papanicolaou test) for secondary prevention of cervical cancer.

The trial of screening for HPV in menstrual pads that is ongoing in India was the brainchild of Atul Budukh, PhD, a government public health researcher and professor at the Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai.

Dr. Budukh’s eyes were opened to the scale of the problem when he participated in a cluster-randomized trial funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The study, published in 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 131,746 rural women in the Osmanabad district of India.

A team of researchers from India and France compared outcomes for women over 8 years after cervical screening by HPV, cytology, or visual inspection with acetic acid. The control group was usual care, where women were advised how to seek screening at local hospitals. Women who screened positive were referred for colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment.

Over the 8-year follow-up, advanced cervical cancer was found in twice as many women left to their own devices, compared with women who had HPV testing during the study (82 vs. 39; hazard ratio for HPV, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.69).

Similarly, cervical cancer deaths in the control group were nearly two times higher than among the women who were screened for HPV in the study (64 vs. 34; HR for HPV, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.83).

The study proved that rural Indian women were dying unnecessarily because they weren’t seeking cervical screening. And education wasn’t the problem.

“When we go and educate [a rural woman] about ... risk factors and the need to undergo screening, she understands it very well,” said Dr. Budukh. “She is ready to come but her priority is her bread and butter – she will lose her daily wages.”

Dr. Budukh and his team negotiated with local employers so that women could come to screening clinics, but they soon realized this wasn’t scalable.

One year after the NEJM publication, Dr. Budukh found what he was looking for.

A team of Hong Kong clinicians, headed by Sze Chuen Cesar Wong of the Hong Kong Cancer Institute, published a paper in 2010 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology showing that menstrual pads provide reliable HPV results in women with and without cervical disease.

The Hong Kong team tested sanitary napkins for HPV from 235 of their patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or condyloma acuminatum before and after treatment. Samples were compared with those from 323 women without cervical disease; for HPV in sanitary napkins the sensitivity was 82.8%, specificity was 93.1%, and positive and negative predictive values were 90% and 87.9%, respectively.

The authors pointed out that menstrual pad testing was the only truly noninvasive approach to HPV screening versus the other self-sampling methods such as tampons and cytobrushes. Also, these self-sampling tests require specialized liquid-based transport media. A menstrual pad needs only a plastic bag.

Dr. Budukh had his at-home solution for the hard-working rural women of India.

With funding from the Indian government, Dr. Budukh’s team put together a validation trial that ran from 2013 to 2016 in 18 rural villages in two separate districts: Ahmednagar and Pune.

Local health workers went house to house to recruit women and get family buy-in for this culturally delicate project. Participants were instructed to use their regular sanitary protection – most commonly a washable cloth – and told to call the health worker on the first day of menstruation. Health workers gave each woman a Ziploc bag for the pad and, for privacy, an outer polythene sac.

In Ahmednagar, all women who provided their pad also got screened with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen) by a mobile screening unit. In Pune, only the positive cases underwent HC2. Screening was also extended to anyone who requested it, but these people were not included in the final analysis.

Genomic DNA was extracted from three 5 mm–sized punches in the pad using a commercial kit, QIAamp DNA Micro, and the quality and purity of the DNA checked by Implen NanoPhotometer.

The team followed the same protocol for PCR HPV assay as the team from Hong Kong.

The results were published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention in 2018.

The concordance rate for a positive result between the menstrual pad sample and conventional HPV sampling was 98.8% for Ahmednagar and 95.2% for samples from Pune. The sensitivity for the first study was 83% and the specificity 99% – similar to that for the women in Hong Kong. The second study had lower sensitivity and specificity (67% and 88%), partly because of poor storage as a result of frequent power cuts.

The total cost per woman was $30.78.

“I was very excited when we saw the results,” Dr. Budukh recalled. “That day I couldn’t sleep ... such a wonderful result! I was excited to start the next phase immediately.”

Dr. Budukh has applied to the Indian government for funding for a larger trial involving 3,000 women. If successful, he hopes such evidence would be sufficient to convince the Indian government to make menstrual pad screening standard procedure for the 390 million women who live in India’s countryside.

Testing never-screened women for cervical cancer using menstrual pads appears to be relatively reliable, convenient, private, noninvasive, and incredibly cheap.

So who else has tried it?

The first published account of HPV in menstrual blood was a 2003 study by Tommy Tong and colleagues at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Hong Kong. The authors heralded, with lamentable optimism, “a new paradigm in cervical cancer screening.”

In the following 20 years, just six more studies appeared: two from Dr. Budukh’s field trial in India and four from hospital-based pilot studies in Hong Kong (in 2010 and 2018), South Korea (in 2016), and mainland China (in 2021). All these studies, although small, were published in top-flight journals and demonstrate high concordance between conventional high-risk HPV testing and menstrual-blood tests.

This news organization tried to find a U.S. thought-leader who had heard of the approach.

Elizabeth Fontham, MPH, DrPh, is the founding dean of the school of public health at Louisiana State University Health Center in New Orleans, and president of the American Cancer Society. Dr. Fontham said in an email that she had “no plans to evaluate the impact related to menstrual pads, but perhaps others have looked into that.”

Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, was first author on the evidence synthesis driving the current cervical cancer screening recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. When asked about menstrual pad testing for HPV, she said she had “not heard of it before.”

The USPSTF guidelines don’t mention sanitary pads but acknowledge that “self-collection may be one strategy for increasing screening rates among populations where they are currently low.”

The USPSTF methodology excludes data from countries that don’t match the United States on the Human Development Index “or [are] not applicable to U.S. clinical settings or populations.” (Presumably, data from Hong Kong and South Korea would qualify; Indian data would not.)

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe of the NCI hadn’t heard of menstrual pad testing either, but he has a different explanation for lack of interest in this approach – or, indeed, any form of self-sampling for cervical cancer screening – in the United States.

“We have not seen movement happen in this space for years. ... If there is one intervention that we can simplify, that still has not been made widely available, it is self-sampling ... [but] we don’t have [Food and Drug Administration] approval for it,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said.

“Our system, at least in the U.S., is based on industry manufacturers seeking an approval for a particular way of collection and then clinicians and clinical-guideline bodies signing on. ... For a lot of reasons industry has shied away over the past several years, so far, at least, on seeking approval for self-sampling-based approaches,” he commented.

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe aims to change that. He heads a new NCI-led initiative called “The Last Mile,” a nationwide clinical trial supported by federal agencies, industry partners, and professional societies. The goal is to validate self-sampled HPV testing as non-inferior to specimens collected by providers. The team is currently finalizing the methodology of the study, so Dr. Sahasrabuddhe could not share the self-sampling methods that will be on trial, nor the industry partners who have signed up.

The following tests are approved in the United States for physician-collected HPV screening: Hybrid Capture 2, used in the Indian studies (Qiagen); cobas HPV (Roche); Aptima (Hologic); Cervista (Hologic); and Onclarity (Becton Dickinson).

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said that, while a sanitary pad in a Ziploc bag is unlikely to make the grade for The Last Mile study, he doesn’t totally dismiss their potential and said the NCI is always open to new ideas.

“We are not supporting anybody specifically for menstrual pad-based collection device development,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said, “But if they fulfill other criteria for a small business–based grant application, they absolutely are welcome to apply for NCI funding for this.”

Said Dr. Melnikow: “Pre-COVID, the head of [the World Health Organization] said that we could eliminate cervical cancer from the globe and that we have the tools to do that now. And he’s right.”

Dr. Budukh, Dr. Melnikow, and Dr. Sahasrabuddhe disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cell phone rings in a red-brick bungalow in a village in India. A woman on the other end of the phone tells Ms. SK, a community health worker, that menstruation has started. Ms. SK guns her scooter through the dusty streets for 15 minutes in 30° C (86° F) heat.

A 32-year-old woman, waiting in the shade of a blue corrugated-iron roof, hands over a green polythene bag. Ms. SK whisks the package to the local health center and tucks it into a –20° C freezer. The following week, it will ride in dry ice to the National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health Laboratory in Mumbai for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.

The two women are participants in the world’s first community-based validation trial of cervical screening using menstrual pads.

This moment in rural India at first glance appears to have little relevance to wealthy countries such as the United States.

However, public health officials in both countries are trying to solve the same problem: how to prevent unnecessary deaths from cervical cancer by reaching women who have never or rarely been screened.

The United States has more in common with India than it may care to admit.

“In the U.S., we still have pockets of disparities that actually have incidence rates [of cervical cancer] comparable to many low- and middle-income countries,” said Vikrant Sahasrabuddhe, MBBS, DrPh, MPH, of the National Cancer Institute, where he heads the HPV and cervical cancer prevention clinical research program for the National Institutes of Health.

The incidence of cervical cancer in India is approximately 19 per 100,000 women. For the past 15 years incidence in the United States has stalled at approximately 7 per 100,000.

In India, there are no organized screening programs and most cervical cancer is regional or distant metastatic at diagnosis.

In the United States, 52% of new cases are advanced, and half of these are among women who have never or rarely been screened.

“There is a critical need for new strategies to reach this population,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said. “We absolutely have to do something out of the box creatively.”

Almost all cervical cancers are triggered by HPV, most commonly high-risk HPV-16 and HPV-18, although there are more than 200 types. HPV testing is taking over from cytology (Papanicolaou test) for secondary prevention of cervical cancer.

The trial of screening for HPV in menstrual pads that is ongoing in India was the brainchild of Atul Budukh, PhD, a government public health researcher and professor at the Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai.

Dr. Budukh’s eyes were opened to the scale of the problem when he participated in a cluster-randomized trial funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The study, published in 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 131,746 rural women in the Osmanabad district of India.

A team of researchers from India and France compared outcomes for women over 8 years after cervical screening by HPV, cytology, or visual inspection with acetic acid. The control group was usual care, where women were advised how to seek screening at local hospitals. Women who screened positive were referred for colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment.

Over the 8-year follow-up, advanced cervical cancer was found in twice as many women left to their own devices, compared with women who had HPV testing during the study (82 vs. 39; hazard ratio for HPV, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.69).

Similarly, cervical cancer deaths in the control group were nearly two times higher than among the women who were screened for HPV in the study (64 vs. 34; HR for HPV, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.83).

The study proved that rural Indian women were dying unnecessarily because they weren’t seeking cervical screening. And education wasn’t the problem.

“When we go and educate [a rural woman] about ... risk factors and the need to undergo screening, she understands it very well,” said Dr. Budukh. “She is ready to come but her priority is her bread and butter – she will lose her daily wages.”

Dr. Budukh and his team negotiated with local employers so that women could come to screening clinics, but they soon realized this wasn’t scalable.

One year after the NEJM publication, Dr. Budukh found what he was looking for.

A team of Hong Kong clinicians, headed by Sze Chuen Cesar Wong of the Hong Kong Cancer Institute, published a paper in 2010 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology showing that menstrual pads provide reliable HPV results in women with and without cervical disease.

The Hong Kong team tested sanitary napkins for HPV from 235 of their patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or condyloma acuminatum before and after treatment. Samples were compared with those from 323 women without cervical disease; for HPV in sanitary napkins the sensitivity was 82.8%, specificity was 93.1%, and positive and negative predictive values were 90% and 87.9%, respectively.

The authors pointed out that menstrual pad testing was the only truly noninvasive approach to HPV screening versus the other self-sampling methods such as tampons and cytobrushes. Also, these self-sampling tests require specialized liquid-based transport media. A menstrual pad needs only a plastic bag.

Dr. Budukh had his at-home solution for the hard-working rural women of India.

With funding from the Indian government, Dr. Budukh’s team put together a validation trial that ran from 2013 to 2016 in 18 rural villages in two separate districts: Ahmednagar and Pune.

Local health workers went house to house to recruit women and get family buy-in for this culturally delicate project. Participants were instructed to use their regular sanitary protection – most commonly a washable cloth – and told to call the health worker on the first day of menstruation. Health workers gave each woman a Ziploc bag for the pad and, for privacy, an outer polythene sac.

In Ahmednagar, all women who provided their pad also got screened with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen) by a mobile screening unit. In Pune, only the positive cases underwent HC2. Screening was also extended to anyone who requested it, but these people were not included in the final analysis.

Genomic DNA was extracted from three 5 mm–sized punches in the pad using a commercial kit, QIAamp DNA Micro, and the quality and purity of the DNA checked by Implen NanoPhotometer.

The team followed the same protocol for PCR HPV assay as the team from Hong Kong.

The results were published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention in 2018.

The concordance rate for a positive result between the menstrual pad sample and conventional HPV sampling was 98.8% for Ahmednagar and 95.2% for samples from Pune. The sensitivity for the first study was 83% and the specificity 99% – similar to that for the women in Hong Kong. The second study had lower sensitivity and specificity (67% and 88%), partly because of poor storage as a result of frequent power cuts.

The total cost per woman was $30.78.

“I was very excited when we saw the results,” Dr. Budukh recalled. “That day I couldn’t sleep ... such a wonderful result! I was excited to start the next phase immediately.”

Dr. Budukh has applied to the Indian government for funding for a larger trial involving 3,000 women. If successful, he hopes such evidence would be sufficient to convince the Indian government to make menstrual pad screening standard procedure for the 390 million women who live in India’s countryside.

Testing never-screened women for cervical cancer using menstrual pads appears to be relatively reliable, convenient, private, noninvasive, and incredibly cheap.

So who else has tried it?

The first published account of HPV in menstrual blood was a 2003 study by Tommy Tong and colleagues at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Hong Kong. The authors heralded, with lamentable optimism, “a new paradigm in cervical cancer screening.”

In the following 20 years, just six more studies appeared: two from Dr. Budukh’s field trial in India and four from hospital-based pilot studies in Hong Kong (in 2010 and 2018), South Korea (in 2016), and mainland China (in 2021). All these studies, although small, were published in top-flight journals and demonstrate high concordance between conventional high-risk HPV testing and menstrual-blood tests.

This news organization tried to find a U.S. thought-leader who had heard of the approach.

Elizabeth Fontham, MPH, DrPh, is the founding dean of the school of public health at Louisiana State University Health Center in New Orleans, and president of the American Cancer Society. Dr. Fontham said in an email that she had “no plans to evaluate the impact related to menstrual pads, but perhaps others have looked into that.”

Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, was first author on the evidence synthesis driving the current cervical cancer screening recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. When asked about menstrual pad testing for HPV, she said she had “not heard of it before.”

The USPSTF guidelines don’t mention sanitary pads but acknowledge that “self-collection may be one strategy for increasing screening rates among populations where they are currently low.”

The USPSTF methodology excludes data from countries that don’t match the United States on the Human Development Index “or [are] not applicable to U.S. clinical settings or populations.” (Presumably, data from Hong Kong and South Korea would qualify; Indian data would not.)

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe of the NCI hadn’t heard of menstrual pad testing either, but he has a different explanation for lack of interest in this approach – or, indeed, any form of self-sampling for cervical cancer screening – in the United States.

“We have not seen movement happen in this space for years. ... If there is one intervention that we can simplify, that still has not been made widely available, it is self-sampling ... [but] we don’t have [Food and Drug Administration] approval for it,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said.

“Our system, at least in the U.S., is based on industry manufacturers seeking an approval for a particular way of collection and then clinicians and clinical-guideline bodies signing on. ... For a lot of reasons industry has shied away over the past several years, so far, at least, on seeking approval for self-sampling-based approaches,” he commented.

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe aims to change that. He heads a new NCI-led initiative called “The Last Mile,” a nationwide clinical trial supported by federal agencies, industry partners, and professional societies. The goal is to validate self-sampled HPV testing as non-inferior to specimens collected by providers. The team is currently finalizing the methodology of the study, so Dr. Sahasrabuddhe could not share the self-sampling methods that will be on trial, nor the industry partners who have signed up.

The following tests are approved in the United States for physician-collected HPV screening: Hybrid Capture 2, used in the Indian studies (Qiagen); cobas HPV (Roche); Aptima (Hologic); Cervista (Hologic); and Onclarity (Becton Dickinson).

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said that, while a sanitary pad in a Ziploc bag is unlikely to make the grade for The Last Mile study, he doesn’t totally dismiss their potential and said the NCI is always open to new ideas.

“We are not supporting anybody specifically for menstrual pad-based collection device development,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said, “But if they fulfill other criteria for a small business–based grant application, they absolutely are welcome to apply for NCI funding for this.”

Said Dr. Melnikow: “Pre-COVID, the head of [the World Health Organization] said that we could eliminate cervical cancer from the globe and that we have the tools to do that now. And he’s right.”

Dr. Budukh, Dr. Melnikow, and Dr. Sahasrabuddhe disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A ketogenic diet fed to mice with epithelial ovarian cancer led to significantly increased tumor growth and gut microbiome alterations, according to study recently presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

“The keto diet is very popular, especially among patients who believe it may treat cancer by starving tumors of the fuel they need to grow, altering the immune system, and other anticancer effects,” said study leader Mariam AlHilli, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic.

The findings are surprising because in other studies the high-fat, zero-carb ketogenic diet has demonstrated tumor-suppressing effects. It has been under study as a possible adjuvant therapy for other cancers, such as glioblastoma, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and pancreatic cancer.

“While we don’t know yet whether these findings extend to patients, the results in animals indicate that instead of being protective, the keto diet appears to promote ovarian cancer growth and progression,” Dr. AlHilli said. In the present study, tumor bearing mice were fed a keto diet consisting of 10% protein, 0% carbohydrates, and 90% fat, while the high-fat diet was 10% protein, 15% carbohydrates, and 75% fat. The control diet consisted of 10% protein, 77% carbohydrates, and 13% fat. Epithelial ovarian cancer tumor growth was monitored weekly.

Over the 6- to 10-week course of study, a 9.1-fold increase from baseline in tumor growth was observed in the keto diet-fed mice (n = 20). Among mice fed a high-fat diet (n = 20) that included some carbohydrates, tumor growth increased 2.0-fold from baseline, and among control group mice (n = 20) fed a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet, tumor growth increased 3.1-fold.

The investigators observed several hallmarks of tumor progression: tumor associated macrophages were enriched significantly, activated lymphoid cells (natural killer cells) were significantly reduced (P < .001), and M2:M1 polarization trended higher. Also, in keto diet–fed mice, gene set enrichment analysis revealed that epithelial ovarian cancer tumors had increased angiogenesis and inflammatory responses, enhanced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition phenotype, and altered lipid metabolism. Compared with high-fat diet–fed mice, the keto-fed mice had increases in lipid catalytic activity and catabolism, as well as decreases in lipid synthesis.

“The tumor increase could be mediated by the gut microbiome or by gene alterations or by metabolite levels that influence tumor growth. It’s possible that each cancer type is different. The composition of the diet may be a factor, as well as how tumors metabolize fat and ketones,” Dr. AlHilli said.

The results need to be confirmed in preclinical animal studies and in additional models, she added.

The study was funded by a K12 Grant and internal funding from Cleveland Clinic. Dr. AlHilli declared no relevant disclosures.

A ketogenic diet fed to mice with epithelial ovarian cancer led to significantly increased tumor growth and gut microbiome alterations, according to study recently presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

“The keto diet is very popular, especially among patients who believe it may treat cancer by starving tumors of the fuel they need to grow, altering the immune system, and other anticancer effects,” said study leader Mariam AlHilli, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic.

The findings are surprising because in other studies the high-fat, zero-carb ketogenic diet has demonstrated tumor-suppressing effects. It has been under study as a possible adjuvant therapy for other cancers, such as glioblastoma, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and pancreatic cancer.

“While we don’t know yet whether these findings extend to patients, the results in animals indicate that instead of being protective, the keto diet appears to promote ovarian cancer growth and progression,” Dr. AlHilli said. In the present study, tumor bearing mice were fed a keto diet consisting of 10% protein, 0% carbohydrates, and 90% fat, while the high-fat diet was 10% protein, 15% carbohydrates, and 75% fat. The control diet consisted of 10% protein, 77% carbohydrates, and 13% fat. Epithelial ovarian cancer tumor growth was monitored weekly.

Over the 6- to 10-week course of study, a 9.1-fold increase from baseline in tumor growth was observed in the keto diet-fed mice (n = 20). Among mice fed a high-fat diet (n = 20) that included some carbohydrates, tumor growth increased 2.0-fold from baseline, and among control group mice (n = 20) fed a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet, tumor growth increased 3.1-fold.

The investigators observed several hallmarks of tumor progression: tumor associated macrophages were enriched significantly, activated lymphoid cells (natural killer cells) were significantly reduced (P < .001), and M2:M1 polarization trended higher. Also, in keto diet–fed mice, gene set enrichment analysis revealed that epithelial ovarian cancer tumors had increased angiogenesis and inflammatory responses, enhanced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition phenotype, and altered lipid metabolism. Compared with high-fat diet–fed mice, the keto-fed mice had increases in lipid catalytic activity and catabolism, as well as decreases in lipid synthesis.

“The tumor increase could be mediated by the gut microbiome or by gene alterations or by metabolite levels that influence tumor growth. It’s possible that each cancer type is different. The composition of the diet may be a factor, as well as how tumors metabolize fat and ketones,” Dr. AlHilli said.

The results need to be confirmed in preclinical animal studies and in additional models, she added.

The study was funded by a K12 Grant and internal funding from Cleveland Clinic. Dr. AlHilli declared no relevant disclosures.

A ketogenic diet fed to mice with epithelial ovarian cancer led to significantly increased tumor growth and gut microbiome alterations, according to study recently presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

“The keto diet is very popular, especially among patients who believe it may treat cancer by starving tumors of the fuel they need to grow, altering the immune system, and other anticancer effects,” said study leader Mariam AlHilli, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic.

The findings are surprising because in other studies the high-fat, zero-carb ketogenic diet has demonstrated tumor-suppressing effects. It has been under study as a possible adjuvant therapy for other cancers, such as glioblastoma, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and pancreatic cancer.

“While we don’t know yet whether these findings extend to patients, the results in animals indicate that instead of being protective, the keto diet appears to promote ovarian cancer growth and progression,” Dr. AlHilli said. In the present study, tumor bearing mice were fed a keto diet consisting of 10% protein, 0% carbohydrates, and 90% fat, while the high-fat diet was 10% protein, 15% carbohydrates, and 75% fat. The control diet consisted of 10% protein, 77% carbohydrates, and 13% fat. Epithelial ovarian cancer tumor growth was monitored weekly.

Over the 6- to 10-week course of study, a 9.1-fold increase from baseline in tumor growth was observed in the keto diet-fed mice (n = 20). Among mice fed a high-fat diet (n = 20) that included some carbohydrates, tumor growth increased 2.0-fold from baseline, and among control group mice (n = 20) fed a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet, tumor growth increased 3.1-fold.

The investigators observed several hallmarks of tumor progression: tumor associated macrophages were enriched significantly, activated lymphoid cells (natural killer cells) were significantly reduced (P < .001), and M2:M1 polarization trended higher. Also, in keto diet–fed mice, gene set enrichment analysis revealed that epithelial ovarian cancer tumors had increased angiogenesis and inflammatory responses, enhanced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition phenotype, and altered lipid metabolism. Compared with high-fat diet–fed mice, the keto-fed mice had increases in lipid catalytic activity and catabolism, as well as decreases in lipid synthesis.

“The tumor increase could be mediated by the gut microbiome or by gene alterations or by metabolite levels that influence tumor growth. It’s possible that each cancer type is different. The composition of the diet may be a factor, as well as how tumors metabolize fat and ketones,” Dr. AlHilli said.

The results need to be confirmed in preclinical animal studies and in additional models, she added.

The study was funded by a K12 Grant and internal funding from Cleveland Clinic. Dr. AlHilli declared no relevant disclosures.

An artificial intelligence (AI) model successfully predicted which high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients would have excellent responses to laparoscopic surgery. The model, using still-frame images from pretreatment laparoscopic surgical videos, had an overall accuracy rate of 93%, according to the pilot study’s first author, Deanna Glassman, MD, an oncologic fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Glassman described her research in a presentation given at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

While the AI model successfully identified all excellent-response patients, it did classify about a third of patients with poor responses as excellent responses. The smaller number of images in the poor-response category, Dr. Glassman speculated, may explain the misclassification.

Researchers took 435 representative still-frame images from pretreatment laparoscopic surgical videos of 113 patients with pathologically proven high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Using 70% of the images to train the model, they used 10% for validation and 20% for the actual testing. They developed the AI model with images from four anatomical locations (diaphragm, omentum, peritoneum, and pelvis), training it using deep learning and neural networks to extract morphological disease patterns for correlation with either of two outcomes: excellent response or poor response. An excellent response was defined as progression-free survival of 12 months or more, and poor response as PFS of 6 months or less. In the retrospective study of images, after excluding 32 gray-zone patients, 75 patients (66%) had durable responses to therapy and 6 (5%) had poor responses.

The PFS was 19 months in the excellent-response group and 3 months in the poor-response group.

Clinicians have often observed differences in gross morphology within the single histologic diagnosis of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. The research intent was to determine if AI could detect these distinct morphological patterns in the still frame images taken at the time of laparoscopy, and correlate them with the eventual clinical outcomes. Dr. Glassman and colleagues are currently validating the model with a much larger cohort, and will look into clinical testing.

“The big-picture goal,” Dr. Glassman said in an interview, “would be to utilize the model to predict which patients would do well with traditional standard of care treatments and those who wouldn’t do well so that we can personalize the treatment plan for those patients with alternative agents and therapies.”

Once validated, the model could also be employed to identify patterns of disease in other gynecologic cancers or distinguish between viable and necrosed malignant tissue.

The study’s predominant limitation was the small sample size which is being addressed in a larger ongoing study.

Funding was provided by a T32 grant, MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant, MD Anderson Ovarian Cancer Moon Shot, SPORE in Ovarian Cancer, the American Cancer Society, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance. Dr. Glassman declared no relevant financial relationships.

An artificial intelligence (AI) model successfully predicted which high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients would have excellent responses to laparoscopic surgery. The model, using still-frame images from pretreatment laparoscopic surgical videos, had an overall accuracy rate of 93%, according to the pilot study’s first author, Deanna Glassman, MD, an oncologic fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Glassman described her research in a presentation given at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

While the AI model successfully identified all excellent-response patients, it did classify about a third of patients with poor responses as excellent responses. The smaller number of images in the poor-response category, Dr. Glassman speculated, may explain the misclassification.

Researchers took 435 representative still-frame images from pretreatment laparoscopic surgical videos of 113 patients with pathologically proven high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Using 70% of the images to train the model, they used 10% for validation and 20% for the actual testing. They developed the AI model with images from four anatomical locations (diaphragm, omentum, peritoneum, and pelvis), training it using deep learning and neural networks to extract morphological disease patterns for correlation with either of two outcomes: excellent response or poor response. An excellent response was defined as progression-free survival of 12 months or more, and poor response as PFS of 6 months or less. In the retrospective study of images, after excluding 32 gray-zone patients, 75 patients (66%) had durable responses to therapy and 6 (5%) had poor responses.

The PFS was 19 months in the excellent-response group and 3 months in the poor-response group.

Clinicians have often observed differences in gross morphology within the single histologic diagnosis of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. The research intent was to determine if AI could detect these distinct morphological patterns in the still frame images taken at the time of laparoscopy, and correlate them with the eventual clinical outcomes. Dr. Glassman and colleagues are currently validating the model with a much larger cohort, and will look into clinical testing.

“The big-picture goal,” Dr. Glassman said in an interview, “would be to utilize the model to predict which patients would do well with traditional standard of care treatments and those who wouldn’t do well so that we can personalize the treatment plan for those patients with alternative agents and therapies.”

Once validated, the model could also be employed to identify patterns of disease in other gynecologic cancers or distinguish between viable and necrosed malignant tissue.

The study’s predominant limitation was the small sample size which is being addressed in a larger ongoing study.

Funding was provided by a T32 grant, MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant, MD Anderson Ovarian Cancer Moon Shot, SPORE in Ovarian Cancer, the American Cancer Society, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance. Dr. Glassman declared no relevant financial relationships.

An artificial intelligence (AI) model successfully predicted which high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients would have excellent responses to laparoscopic surgery. The model, using still-frame images from pretreatment laparoscopic surgical videos, had an overall accuracy rate of 93%, according to the pilot study’s first author, Deanna Glassman, MD, an oncologic fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Glassman described her research in a presentation given at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

While the AI model successfully identified all excellent-response patients, it did classify about a third of patients with poor responses as excellent responses. The smaller number of images in the poor-response category, Dr. Glassman speculated, may explain the misclassification.

Researchers took 435 representative still-frame images from pretreatment laparoscopic surgical videos of 113 patients with pathologically proven high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Using 70% of the images to train the model, they used 10% for validation and 20% for the actual testing. They developed the AI model with images from four anatomical locations (diaphragm, omentum, peritoneum, and pelvis), training it using deep learning and neural networks to extract morphological disease patterns for correlation with either of two outcomes: excellent response or poor response. An excellent response was defined as progression-free survival of 12 months or more, and poor response as PFS of 6 months or less. In the retrospective study of images, after excluding 32 gray-zone patients, 75 patients (66%) had durable responses to therapy and 6 (5%) had poor responses.

The PFS was 19 months in the excellent-response group and 3 months in the poor-response group.

Clinicians have often observed differences in gross morphology within the single histologic diagnosis of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. The research intent was to determine if AI could detect these distinct morphological patterns in the still frame images taken at the time of laparoscopy, and correlate them with the eventual clinical outcomes. Dr. Glassman and colleagues are currently validating the model with a much larger cohort, and will look into clinical testing.

“The big-picture goal,” Dr. Glassman said in an interview, “would be to utilize the model to predict which patients would do well with traditional standard of care treatments and those who wouldn’t do well so that we can personalize the treatment plan for those patients with alternative agents and therapies.”

Once validated, the model could also be employed to identify patterns of disease in other gynecologic cancers or distinguish between viable and necrosed malignant tissue.

The study’s predominant limitation was the small sample size which is being addressed in a larger ongoing study.

Funding was provided by a T32 grant, MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant, MD Anderson Ovarian Cancer Moon Shot, SPORE in Ovarian Cancer, the American Cancer Society, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance. Dr. Glassman declared no relevant financial relationships.

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

The link between obesity and cancer has increasingly been emphasized in public health messages, but is the current message correct?

“Being overweight or having obesity increases your risk of getting cancer,” warns the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It warns that overweight/obesity is “linked with a higher risk of getting 13 types of cancer ... [which] make up 40% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States each year.”

But that message, which is also promulgated by many cancer organizations, is based on data from observational studies, which have many limitations.

A new study based on Mendelian randomization studies has come to a slightly different conclusion and has found a potential causal association with just six cancers.

In addition, it found an inverse relationship for breast cancer, in which early-life obesity was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer, and the relationship with obesity was “complicated” for lung and prostate cancer.

The study, headed by Zhe Fang, MBBS, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Mass., was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

“For a seemingly straightforward question of whether excessive body fatness causes cancer, the answer may not be straightforward after all,” writes Song Yao, PhD, professor of oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., in an accompanying editorial

“How to craft a simple public health message to convey the complexity and nuances of the relationships may be a challenge to be grappled with going forward,” he added.

In an interview, Dr. Yao said that it “really depends on what kind of message you want to get out.”

“If you want to talk about cancer overall, as one disease, we all know that a clear association with obesity does not exist,” he said. “It’s not that simple.”

“You really cannot say that obesity increases cancer risk overall,” he said.

For some cancers included in the study, Dr. Yao continued, it was “very clear that obesity increased the risk ... but for some other cancer types, we either don’t have enough data yet or the association is not as consistent.”

This, he said, is especially the case for prostate and lung cancer.

All of this indicates that there is a complex relationship between obesity and cancer risk, he maintains.

“We always think obesity is bad, not only for cancer but also for more common conditions, like hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Yao noted. This points to the link between obesity and chronic inflammation, he added.

However, there are also other hypotheses, including synthesis of estrogen in adipose tissue, which may explain the link between obesity and breast cancer risk in older women.

However, in younger women, obesity protects against breast cancer, and “we really don’t know why,” Dr. Yao said.

The new study used Mendelian randomization to examine these relationships. This is a “new tool that we have developed over the past 20 years or so, largely because there is so much data coming from genome-wide association studies,” Dr. Yao explained.

It has “advantages” over other methods, including observational studies. One of its strengths is that it is “not impacted by reverse causality,” because genetic risk does not change over time.

However, he said, it is “quite straightforward to think that the genetics do not change, but at the same time, the environment we live in throughout our life course changes,” and the impact of genetic variants may be “washed out.”

How genetics influences cancer risk may therefore change over time, and it is a “dynamic process,” Dr. Yao commented.

In addition, this approach has its own limitations, he said, because it depends on how much of the variation in a given measure can be attributed to genetic factors.
 

New conclusions

In their study, Dr. Fang and colleagues reviewed 204 meta-analyses of 2,179 individual estimates from 507 cohort or case-control studies. They found “strong evidence” that supports the association between obesity and 11 cancers.

These are esophageal adenocarcinoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the gastric cardia, colon, rectum, biliary tract system, pancreas, breast, endometrium, ovary, and kidney.

They note, however, that the associations “may be causal for some malignancies” but that the co-occurrence of obesity with various cancer risk factors means that others may be “susceptible to potential confounding bias.”

To overcome some of these limitations, the team looked to Mendelian randomization studies that examined the association between genetic variants linked to body mass index (BMI), indicating lifetime risk of high BMI, and cancer risk for a range of cancer types.

These Mendelian randomization studies were then compared with the results of large-scale conventional observational studies, as well as with evidence in reports from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Cancer Research Fund–American Institute of Cancer Research, which also include experimental studies.

The researchers say that, overall, the Mendelian randomization studies “further establish the causality of obesity” with six cancer types: colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, kidney, and pancreatic cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In addition, these studies further establish the inverse relationship of early-life obesity with breast cancer.

However, the approach could not confirm a positive association between obesity and gallbladder and gastric cardia cancer, as well as multiple myeloma.

“This could be due to low power,” the team suggests, “and larger studies are required.”

With respect to lung cancer, the Mendelian randomization identified a positive association with obesity that supports the inverse association identified in observational studies, that is, that obesity may reduce the risk for lung cancer.

The researchers suggest this may reflect reverse causality related to the loss of lean body mass before diagnosis, as well as confounding by smoking.

For prostate cancer, the evidence was “conflicting” and “implies a complicated role of obesity,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues comment.

The link between obesity and lower prostate-specific antigen levels, they suggest, may result in a detection bias by masking the presence of prostate cancer, or it “could be biological” in origin, owing to reduced androgen levels.

For six cancer types for which a causal relationship with obesity could be established, the effect estimates from the Mendelian randomization studies were stronger than those seen in conventional studies, with the magnitude of risk ranging from 1.14-fold for early-life obesity and breast cancer to 1.37-fold for adult obesity and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In another editorial accompanying the new study, Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH, from Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, underlined that childhood and adolescent obesity and their contribution to cancer risk need further attention.

“To reap the reward from past research, we must act to implement effective strategies to reduce childhood and adolescent adiposity, reduce excess weight gain in adult years, and maintain a healthy weight,” he writes.

“This will require us to change the way we live, but COVID-19 has shown we can make changes to how we live and work. Let us keep the changes we have already made, or take on new ones, that will cut our collective cancer toll,” he implores.

No funding for the study was described. Dr. Colditz is supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. No other relevant financial relationships were described.

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

The link between obesity and cancer has increasingly been emphasized in public health messages, but is the current message correct?

“Being overweight or having obesity increases your risk of getting cancer,” warns the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It warns that overweight/obesity is “linked with a higher risk of getting 13 types of cancer ... [which] make up 40% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States each year.”

But that message, which is also promulgated by many cancer organizations, is based on data from observational studies, which have many limitations.

A new study based on Mendelian randomization studies has come to a slightly different conclusion and has found a potential causal association with just six cancers.

In addition, it found an inverse relationship for breast cancer, in which early-life obesity was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer, and the relationship with obesity was “complicated” for lung and prostate cancer.

The study, headed by Zhe Fang, MBBS, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Mass., was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

“For a seemingly straightforward question of whether excessive body fatness causes cancer, the answer may not be straightforward after all,” writes Song Yao, PhD, professor of oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., in an accompanying editorial

“How to craft a simple public health message to convey the complexity and nuances of the relationships may be a challenge to be grappled with going forward,” he added.

In an interview, Dr. Yao said that it “really depends on what kind of message you want to get out.”

“If you want to talk about cancer overall, as one disease, we all know that a clear association with obesity does not exist,” he said. “It’s not that simple.”

“You really cannot say that obesity increases cancer risk overall,” he said.

For some cancers included in the study, Dr. Yao continued, it was “very clear that obesity increased the risk ... but for some other cancer types, we either don’t have enough data yet or the association is not as consistent.”

This, he said, is especially the case for prostate and lung cancer.

All of this indicates that there is a complex relationship between obesity and cancer risk, he maintains.

“We always think obesity is bad, not only for cancer but also for more common conditions, like hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Yao noted. This points to the link between obesity and chronic inflammation, he added.

However, there are also other hypotheses, including synthesis of estrogen in adipose tissue, which may explain the link between obesity and breast cancer risk in older women.

However, in younger women, obesity protects against breast cancer, and “we really don’t know why,” Dr. Yao said.

The new study used Mendelian randomization to examine these relationships. This is a “new tool that we have developed over the past 20 years or so, largely because there is so much data coming from genome-wide association studies,” Dr. Yao explained.

It has “advantages” over other methods, including observational studies. One of its strengths is that it is “not impacted by reverse causality,” because genetic risk does not change over time.

However, he said, it is “quite straightforward to think that the genetics do not change, but at the same time, the environment we live in throughout our life course changes,” and the impact of genetic variants may be “washed out.”

How genetics influences cancer risk may therefore change over time, and it is a “dynamic process,” Dr. Yao commented.

In addition, this approach has its own limitations, he said, because it depends on how much of the variation in a given measure can be attributed to genetic factors.
 

New conclusions

In their study, Dr. Fang and colleagues reviewed 204 meta-analyses of 2,179 individual estimates from 507 cohort or case-control studies. They found “strong evidence” that supports the association between obesity and 11 cancers.

These are esophageal adenocarcinoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the gastric cardia, colon, rectum, biliary tract system, pancreas, breast, endometrium, ovary, and kidney.

They note, however, that the associations “may be causal for some malignancies” but that the co-occurrence of obesity with various cancer risk factors means that others may be “susceptible to potential confounding bias.”

To overcome some of these limitations, the team looked to Mendelian randomization studies that examined the association between genetic variants linked to body mass index (BMI), indicating lifetime risk of high BMI, and cancer risk for a range of cancer types.

These Mendelian randomization studies were then compared with the results of large-scale conventional observational studies, as well as with evidence in reports from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Cancer Research Fund–American Institute of Cancer Research, which also include experimental studies.

The researchers say that, overall, the Mendelian randomization studies “further establish the causality of obesity” with six cancer types: colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, kidney, and pancreatic cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In addition, these studies further establish the inverse relationship of early-life obesity with breast cancer.

However, the approach could not confirm a positive association between obesity and gallbladder and gastric cardia cancer, as well as multiple myeloma.

“This could be due to low power,” the team suggests, “and larger studies are required.”

With respect to lung cancer, the Mendelian randomization identified a positive association with obesity that supports the inverse association identified in observational studies, that is, that obesity may reduce the risk for lung cancer.

The researchers suggest this may reflect reverse causality related to the loss of lean body mass before diagnosis, as well as confounding by smoking.

For prostate cancer, the evidence was “conflicting” and “implies a complicated role of obesity,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues comment.

The link between obesity and lower prostate-specific antigen levels, they suggest, may result in a detection bias by masking the presence of prostate cancer, or it “could be biological” in origin, owing to reduced androgen levels.

For six cancer types for which a causal relationship with obesity could be established, the effect estimates from the Mendelian randomization studies were stronger than those seen in conventional studies, with the magnitude of risk ranging from 1.14-fold for early-life obesity and breast cancer to 1.37-fold for adult obesity and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In another editorial accompanying the new study, Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH, from Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, underlined that childhood and adolescent obesity and their contribution to cancer risk need further attention.

“To reap the reward from past research, we must act to implement effective strategies to reduce childhood and adolescent adiposity, reduce excess weight gain in adult years, and maintain a healthy weight,” he writes.

“This will require us to change the way we live, but COVID-19 has shown we can make changes to how we live and work. Let us keep the changes we have already made, or take on new ones, that will cut our collective cancer toll,” he implores.

No funding for the study was described. Dr. Colditz is supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. No other relevant financial relationships were described.

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

The link between obesity and cancer has increasingly been emphasized in public health messages, but is the current message correct?

“Being overweight or having obesity increases your risk of getting cancer,” warns the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It warns that overweight/obesity is “linked with a higher risk of getting 13 types of cancer ... [which] make up 40% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States each year.”

But that message, which is also promulgated by many cancer organizations, is based on data from observational studies, which have many limitations.

A new study based on Mendelian randomization studies has come to a slightly different conclusion and has found a potential causal association with just six cancers.

In addition, it found an inverse relationship for breast cancer, in which early-life obesity was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer, and the relationship with obesity was “complicated” for lung and prostate cancer.

The study, headed by Zhe Fang, MBBS, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Mass., was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

“For a seemingly straightforward question of whether excessive body fatness causes cancer, the answer may not be straightforward after all,” writes Song Yao, PhD, professor of oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., in an accompanying editorial

“How to craft a simple public health message to convey the complexity and nuances of the relationships may be a challenge to be grappled with going forward,” he added.

In an interview, Dr. Yao said that it “really depends on what kind of message you want to get out.”

“If you want to talk about cancer overall, as one disease, we all know that a clear association with obesity does not exist,” he said. “It’s not that simple.”

“You really cannot say that obesity increases cancer risk overall,” he said.

For some cancers included in the study, Dr. Yao continued, it was “very clear that obesity increased the risk ... but for some other cancer types, we either don’t have enough data yet or the association is not as consistent.”

This, he said, is especially the case for prostate and lung cancer.

All of this indicates that there is a complex relationship between obesity and cancer risk, he maintains.

“We always think obesity is bad, not only for cancer but also for more common conditions, like hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Yao noted. This points to the link between obesity and chronic inflammation, he added.

However, there are also other hypotheses, including synthesis of estrogen in adipose tissue, which may explain the link between obesity and breast cancer risk in older women.

However, in younger women, obesity protects against breast cancer, and “we really don’t know why,” Dr. Yao said.

The new study used Mendelian randomization to examine these relationships. This is a “new tool that we have developed over the past 20 years or so, largely because there is so much data coming from genome-wide association studies,” Dr. Yao explained.

It has “advantages” over other methods, including observational studies. One of its strengths is that it is “not impacted by reverse causality,” because genetic risk does not change over time.

However, he said, it is “quite straightforward to think that the genetics do not change, but at the same time, the environment we live in throughout our life course changes,” and the impact of genetic variants may be “washed out.”

How genetics influences cancer risk may therefore change over time, and it is a “dynamic process,” Dr. Yao commented.

In addition, this approach has its own limitations, he said, because it depends on how much of the variation in a given measure can be attributed to genetic factors.
 

New conclusions

In their study, Dr. Fang and colleagues reviewed 204 meta-analyses of 2,179 individual estimates from 507 cohort or case-control studies. They found “strong evidence” that supports the association between obesity and 11 cancers.

These are esophageal adenocarcinoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the gastric cardia, colon, rectum, biliary tract system, pancreas, breast, endometrium, ovary, and kidney.

They note, however, that the associations “may be causal for some malignancies” but that the co-occurrence of obesity with various cancer risk factors means that others may be “susceptible to potential confounding bias.”

To overcome some of these limitations, the team looked to Mendelian randomization studies that examined the association between genetic variants linked to body mass index (BMI), indicating lifetime risk of high BMI, and cancer risk for a range of cancer types.

These Mendelian randomization studies were then compared with the results of large-scale conventional observational studies, as well as with evidence in reports from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Cancer Research Fund–American Institute of Cancer Research, which also include experimental studies.

The researchers say that, overall, the Mendelian randomization studies “further establish the causality of obesity” with six cancer types: colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, kidney, and pancreatic cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In addition, these studies further establish the inverse relationship of early-life obesity with breast cancer.

However, the approach could not confirm a positive association between obesity and gallbladder and gastric cardia cancer, as well as multiple myeloma.

“This could be due to low power,” the team suggests, “and larger studies are required.”

With respect to lung cancer, the Mendelian randomization identified a positive association with obesity that supports the inverse association identified in observational studies, that is, that obesity may reduce the risk for lung cancer.

The researchers suggest this may reflect reverse causality related to the loss of lean body mass before diagnosis, as well as confounding by smoking.

For prostate cancer, the evidence was “conflicting” and “implies a complicated role of obesity,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues comment.

The link between obesity and lower prostate-specific antigen levels, they suggest, may result in a detection bias by masking the presence of prostate cancer, or it “could be biological” in origin, owing to reduced androgen levels.

For six cancer types for which a causal relationship with obesity could be established, the effect estimates from the Mendelian randomization studies were stronger than those seen in conventional studies, with the magnitude of risk ranging from 1.14-fold for early-life obesity and breast cancer to 1.37-fold for adult obesity and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In another editorial accompanying the new study, Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH, from Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, underlined that childhood and adolescent obesity and their contribution to cancer risk need further attention.

“To reap the reward from past research, we must act to implement effective strategies to reduce childhood and adolescent adiposity, reduce excess weight gain in adult years, and maintain a healthy weight,” he writes.

“This will require us to change the way we live, but COVID-19 has shown we can make changes to how we live and work. Let us keep the changes we have already made, or take on new ones, that will cut our collective cancer toll,” he implores.

No funding for the study was described. Dr. Colditz is supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. No other relevant financial relationships were described.

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only 8.5% of endometrial cancer recurrences were caught by routine pelvic exams in asymptomatic women in a review of 234 cases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

It was a much lower rate than previously reported. Asymptomatic exams picked up just 4% of recurrences among high-risk women and 14% in low-risk women.

The findings are important as cancer care shifts away from in-person follow-up – including pelvic exams – to telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, said investigators who were led by University of Wisconsin medical student Hailey Milakovich.

Physicians should reassure patients and providers anxious about skipping routine pelvic exams, she said. There’s a “relatively low risk of missing an endometrial cancer recurrence when forgoing pelvic examination. This information ... is especially relevant in the era of increased use of telemedicine.”

Patient symptoms, such a pain and vaginal bleeding, were by far how most recurrences were caught, accounting for almost 80% of detections among low-risk women and 60% among high-risk patients. It highlights the importance of telling women what to report to their providers, Ms. Milakovich said when she recently presented her study at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Our hope is that this information will help us better counsel our patients regarding the risk of” missing an exam, she said.

The findings speak to an ongoing question in gynecologic oncology: how intensely do endometrial cancer patients need to be followed after curative-intent treatment?
 

COVID-19 brought the issue to a head

Women who typically would have had several pelvic exams a year were channeled to virtual office visits and not pelvic exams. The move caused “some level of anxiety” for both patients and providers, Ms. Milakovich said.

The study discussant, University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologic oncologist Ritu Salani, MD, said the Wisconsin team found something “really important.”

The “investigators suggest there’s a really low utility for pelvic examinations. I think this is very timely” as health care shifts to telemedicine. It reduces the burden on women when “they don’t have to come in and pay for parking, take time off from work, or find childcare,” she said. The findings are also in line with a larger study on the issue, the TOTEM trial with almost 2,000 women, which found no overall survival benefit with intensive monitoring.

The dogma is that routine pelvic exams pick up almost 70% of endometrial cancer recurrences. The Wisconsin team wanted to test that in their 234 recurrence patients from 2010-2019, all of whom had clear documentation about how their recurrences were detected.

Ninety-nine women had low-risk disease, defined as stage 1 or 2, grade 1 or 2 endometrioid histology; 135 women had high-risk cancer, which was defined as stage 3 or 4 endometrioid disease or any other histology.

Recurrence was detected by symptoms in 78.8% of the low-risk group. Asymptomatic pelvic exams detected 14.1% of recurrences; imaging found 2%; biomarkers found 2%; and recurrences were detected by incidental findings in the rest.

Recurrence was found in the high-risk group by symptoms in 60%, imaging in 17.8%, biomarkers in 14.1%, asymptomatic pelvic exams in 4.4%, and incidental findings in 3.7%.

Patients were an average of 68.5 years old, 95.3% were White, and they lived an average of 50.2 miles from the university.

There was no commercial funding for the study. Ms. Milakovich didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Salani is an adviser for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Genentech, and other companies.

Only 8.5% of endometrial cancer recurrences were caught by routine pelvic exams in asymptomatic women in a review of 234 cases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

It was a much lower rate than previously reported. Asymptomatic exams picked up just 4% of recurrences among high-risk women and 14% in low-risk women.

The findings are important as cancer care shifts away from in-person follow-up – including pelvic exams – to telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, said investigators who were led by University of Wisconsin medical student Hailey Milakovich.

Physicians should reassure patients and providers anxious about skipping routine pelvic exams, she said. There’s a “relatively low risk of missing an endometrial cancer recurrence when forgoing pelvic examination. This information ... is especially relevant in the era of increased use of telemedicine.”

Patient symptoms, such a pain and vaginal bleeding, were by far how most recurrences were caught, accounting for almost 80% of detections among low-risk women and 60% among high-risk patients. It highlights the importance of telling women what to report to their providers, Ms. Milakovich said when she recently presented her study at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Our hope is that this information will help us better counsel our patients regarding the risk of” missing an exam, she said.

The findings speak to an ongoing question in gynecologic oncology: how intensely do endometrial cancer patients need to be followed after curative-intent treatment?
 

COVID-19 brought the issue to a head

Women who typically would have had several pelvic exams a year were channeled to virtual office visits and not pelvic exams. The move caused “some level of anxiety” for both patients and providers, Ms. Milakovich said.

The study discussant, University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologic oncologist Ritu Salani, MD, said the Wisconsin team found something “really important.”

The “investigators suggest there’s a really low utility for pelvic examinations. I think this is very timely” as health care shifts to telemedicine. It reduces the burden on women when “they don’t have to come in and pay for parking, take time off from work, or find childcare,” she said. The findings are also in line with a larger study on the issue, the TOTEM trial with almost 2,000 women, which found no overall survival benefit with intensive monitoring.

The dogma is that routine pelvic exams pick up almost 70% of endometrial cancer recurrences. The Wisconsin team wanted to test that in their 234 recurrence patients from 2010-2019, all of whom had clear documentation about how their recurrences were detected.

Ninety-nine women had low-risk disease, defined as stage 1 or 2, grade 1 or 2 endometrioid histology; 135 women had high-risk cancer, which was defined as stage 3 or 4 endometrioid disease or any other histology.

Recurrence was detected by symptoms in 78.8% of the low-risk group. Asymptomatic pelvic exams detected 14.1% of recurrences; imaging found 2%; biomarkers found 2%; and recurrences were detected by incidental findings in the rest.

Recurrence was found in the high-risk group by symptoms in 60%, imaging in 17.8%, biomarkers in 14.1%, asymptomatic pelvic exams in 4.4%, and incidental findings in 3.7%.

Patients were an average of 68.5 years old, 95.3% were White, and they lived an average of 50.2 miles from the university.

There was no commercial funding for the study. Ms. Milakovich didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Salani is an adviser for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Genentech, and other companies.

Only 8.5% of endometrial cancer recurrences were caught by routine pelvic exams in asymptomatic women in a review of 234 cases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

It was a much lower rate than previously reported. Asymptomatic exams picked up just 4% of recurrences among high-risk women and 14% in low-risk women.

The findings are important as cancer care shifts away from in-person follow-up – including pelvic exams – to telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, said investigators who were led by University of Wisconsin medical student Hailey Milakovich.

Physicians should reassure patients and providers anxious about skipping routine pelvic exams, she said. There’s a “relatively low risk of missing an endometrial cancer recurrence when forgoing pelvic examination. This information ... is especially relevant in the era of increased use of telemedicine.”

Patient symptoms, such a pain and vaginal bleeding, were by far how most recurrences were caught, accounting for almost 80% of detections among low-risk women and 60% among high-risk patients. It highlights the importance of telling women what to report to their providers, Ms. Milakovich said when she recently presented her study at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Our hope is that this information will help us better counsel our patients regarding the risk of” missing an exam, she said.

The findings speak to an ongoing question in gynecologic oncology: how intensely do endometrial cancer patients need to be followed after curative-intent treatment?
 

COVID-19 brought the issue to a head

Women who typically would have had several pelvic exams a year were channeled to virtual office visits and not pelvic exams. The move caused “some level of anxiety” for both patients and providers, Ms. Milakovich said.

The study discussant, University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologic oncologist Ritu Salani, MD, said the Wisconsin team found something “really important.”

The “investigators suggest there’s a really low utility for pelvic examinations. I think this is very timely” as health care shifts to telemedicine. It reduces the burden on women when “they don’t have to come in and pay for parking, take time off from work, or find childcare,” she said. The findings are also in line with a larger study on the issue, the TOTEM trial with almost 2,000 women, which found no overall survival benefit with intensive monitoring.

The dogma is that routine pelvic exams pick up almost 70% of endometrial cancer recurrences. The Wisconsin team wanted to test that in their 234 recurrence patients from 2010-2019, all of whom had clear documentation about how their recurrences were detected.

Ninety-nine women had low-risk disease, defined as stage 1 or 2, grade 1 or 2 endometrioid histology; 135 women had high-risk cancer, which was defined as stage 3 or 4 endometrioid disease or any other histology.

Recurrence was detected by symptoms in 78.8% of the low-risk group. Asymptomatic pelvic exams detected 14.1% of recurrences; imaging found 2%; biomarkers found 2%; and recurrences were detected by incidental findings in the rest.

Recurrence was found in the high-risk group by symptoms in 60%, imaging in 17.8%, biomarkers in 14.1%, asymptomatic pelvic exams in 4.4%, and incidental findings in 3.7%.

Patients were an average of 68.5 years old, 95.3% were White, and they lived an average of 50.2 miles from the university.

There was no commercial funding for the study. Ms. Milakovich didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Salani is an adviser for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Genentech, and other companies.

Complete gross resection is much less likely for advanced ovarian cancer in women with mesenchymal tumors and complex preoperative CT findings, according to a report at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting.

Investigators found that women with those features, compared with those without them, are 10 times more likely to have a high-complexity surgery and almost 27 times more likely to have something other than a complete (RD0) resection.

The findings speak to a common dilemma in advanced ovarian cancer, whether women should have surgery or chemotherapy first. Part of the decision hinges on the likelihood of surgical success, explained lead investigator Diogo Torres, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans.

He and his team concluded that “preoperative CT imaging combined with tumor molecular subtyping can identify a subset of women for whom successful primary surgery is unlikely. Preoperative tumor sampling may be useful in advanced [ovarian cancer] to better triage these cases to alternative approaches.”

For years “we’ve been trying to figure out” how best to make the call between primary debulking and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, said Pamela T. Soliman, MD, MPH,a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who discussed the abstract at the meeting.

Imaging alone or CA-125 are often used to make the decision, but they’re unreliable. Diagnostic laparoscopy is accurate, but it isn’t used much, she said.

What’s unique about Dr. Torres’s approach is that, by including tumor subtype, it incorporates tumor biology. It makes sense because his team previously found that women with mesenchymal (MES) tumors are more likely than those with other subtypes to have upper abdominal and miliary disease.

The approach needs validation in a larger study, but “I really commend” the team “for incorporating biology into the decision-making because it is clearly a step in the right direction,” Dr. Soliman said.

The study included 129 women who underwent primary debulking surgery for stage 3c or 4 high-grade serous ovarian cancer; 46x women (36%) had MES tumors according to RNA profiling of surgical specimens.

Preoperative CTs were reviewed to assess diaphragmatic disease; gastrohepatic/portahepatis lesions; root of superior mesenteric artery involvement; presence of moderate to severe ascites; intrahepatic lesions, and diffuse peritoneal thickening greater than 4 mm.

Fifty-nine women (46%) were classified as “CT high,” meaning that they had two or more of those findings. Women with no more than one were categorized as “CT low.”

Patients with MES tumors and CT-high disease had the lowest rates of complete resections, 8% versus 46% for the entire cohort and 72% for non-MES, CT-low women. MES, CT-high women were also the most likely to have high-complexity surgery (81% versus 35% in the non-MES, CT-low group).

Adjusting for age, stage, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score, the odds of high-complexity surgery were 9.53 times higher and the odds of something less than a complete resection were 26.73 times greater in MES, CT-high patients, compared with non-MES, CT-low women.

“Further studies are needed to evaluate and validate this model using preoperative biopsy specimens” instead of surgical specimens, the investigators said.

No funding was reported for the work. Dr. Torres didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Soliman is an adviser for Eisai and Amgen, a consultant for Medscape, and receives research funding from Novartis and Incyte.

Complete gross resection is much less likely for advanced ovarian cancer in women with mesenchymal tumors and complex preoperative CT findings, according to a report at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting.

Investigators found that women with those features, compared with those without them, are 10 times more likely to have a high-complexity surgery and almost 27 times more likely to have something other than a complete (RD0) resection.

The findings speak to a common dilemma in advanced ovarian cancer, whether women should have surgery or chemotherapy first. Part of the decision hinges on the likelihood of surgical success, explained lead investigator Diogo Torres, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans.

He and his team concluded that “preoperative CT imaging combined with tumor molecular subtyping can identify a subset of women for whom successful primary surgery is unlikely. Preoperative tumor sampling may be useful in advanced [ovarian cancer] to better triage these cases to alternative approaches.”

For years “we’ve been trying to figure out” how best to make the call between primary debulking and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, said Pamela T. Soliman, MD, MPH,a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who discussed the abstract at the meeting.

Imaging alone or CA-125 are often used to make the decision, but they’re unreliable. Diagnostic laparoscopy is accurate, but it isn’t used much, she said.

What’s unique about Dr. Torres’s approach is that, by including tumor subtype, it incorporates tumor biology. It makes sense because his team previously found that women with mesenchymal (MES) tumors are more likely than those with other subtypes to have upper abdominal and miliary disease.

The approach needs validation in a larger study, but “I really commend” the team “for incorporating biology into the decision-making because it is clearly a step in the right direction,” Dr. Soliman said.

The study included 129 women who underwent primary debulking surgery for stage 3c or 4 high-grade serous ovarian cancer; 46x women (36%) had MES tumors according to RNA profiling of surgical specimens.

Preoperative CTs were reviewed to assess diaphragmatic disease; gastrohepatic/portahepatis lesions; root of superior mesenteric artery involvement; presence of moderate to severe ascites; intrahepatic lesions, and diffuse peritoneal thickening greater than 4 mm.

Fifty-nine women (46%) were classified as “CT high,” meaning that they had two or more of those findings. Women with no more than one were categorized as “CT low.”

Patients with MES tumors and CT-high disease had the lowest rates of complete resections, 8% versus 46% for the entire cohort and 72% for non-MES, CT-low women. MES, CT-high women were also the most likely to have high-complexity surgery (81% versus 35% in the non-MES, CT-low group).

Adjusting for age, stage, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score, the odds of high-complexity surgery were 9.53 times higher and the odds of something less than a complete resection were 26.73 times greater in MES, CT-high patients, compared with non-MES, CT-low women.

“Further studies are needed to evaluate and validate this model using preoperative biopsy specimens” instead of surgical specimens, the investigators said.

No funding was reported for the work. Dr. Torres didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Soliman is an adviser for Eisai and Amgen, a consultant for Medscape, and receives research funding from Novartis and Incyte.

Complete gross resection is much less likely for advanced ovarian cancer in women with mesenchymal tumors and complex preoperative CT findings, according to a report at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting.

Investigators found that women with those features, compared with those without them, are 10 times more likely to have a high-complexity surgery and almost 27 times more likely to have something other than a complete (RD0) resection.

The findings speak to a common dilemma in advanced ovarian cancer, whether women should have surgery or chemotherapy first. Part of the decision hinges on the likelihood of surgical success, explained lead investigator Diogo Torres, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans.

He and his team concluded that “preoperative CT imaging combined with tumor molecular subtyping can identify a subset of women for whom successful primary surgery is unlikely. Preoperative tumor sampling may be useful in advanced [ovarian cancer] to better triage these cases to alternative approaches.”

For years “we’ve been trying to figure out” how best to make the call between primary debulking and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, said Pamela T. Soliman, MD, MPH,a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who discussed the abstract at the meeting.

Imaging alone or CA-125 are often used to make the decision, but they’re unreliable. Diagnostic laparoscopy is accurate, but it isn’t used much, she said.

What’s unique about Dr. Torres’s approach is that, by including tumor subtype, it incorporates tumor biology. It makes sense because his team previously found that women with mesenchymal (MES) tumors are more likely than those with other subtypes to have upper abdominal and miliary disease.

The approach needs validation in a larger study, but “I really commend” the team “for incorporating biology into the decision-making because it is clearly a step in the right direction,” Dr. Soliman said.

The study included 129 women who underwent primary debulking surgery for stage 3c or 4 high-grade serous ovarian cancer; 46x women (36%) had MES tumors according to RNA profiling of surgical specimens.

Preoperative CTs were reviewed to assess diaphragmatic disease; gastrohepatic/portahepatis lesions; root of superior mesenteric artery involvement; presence of moderate to severe ascites; intrahepatic lesions, and diffuse peritoneal thickening greater than 4 mm.

Fifty-nine women (46%) were classified as “CT high,” meaning that they had two or more of those findings. Women with no more than one were categorized as “CT low.”

Patients with MES tumors and CT-high disease had the lowest rates of complete resections, 8% versus 46% for the entire cohort and 72% for non-MES, CT-low women. MES, CT-high women were also the most likely to have high-complexity surgery (81% versus 35% in the non-MES, CT-low group).

Adjusting for age, stage, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score, the odds of high-complexity surgery were 9.53 times higher and the odds of something less than a complete resection were 26.73 times greater in MES, CT-high patients, compared with non-MES, CT-low women.

“Further studies are needed to evaluate and validate this model using preoperative biopsy specimens” instead of surgical specimens, the investigators said.

No funding was reported for the work. Dr. Torres didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Soliman is an adviser for Eisai and Amgen, a consultant for Medscape, and receives research funding from Novartis and Incyte.