User login
Cancer care ‘transformed in space of a month’ because of pandemic
, the most “revolutionary” being a deep dive into telehealth, predicts Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.
“In the space of a month, approaches and accepted norms of cancer care delivery have been transformed of necessity,” Schrag and colleagues write in an article published in JAMA on April 13.
“Most of these changes would not have occurred without the pandemic,” they add. They predict that some changes will last after the crisis is over.
“None of us want to be thrown in the deep end.... On the other hand, sometimes it works,” Schrag told Medscape Medical News.
“The in-person visit between patient and physician has been upended,” she said.
“I don’t think there’s any going back to the way it was before because cancer patients won’t stand for it,” she said. “They’re not going to drive in to get the results of a blood test.
“I think that on balance, of course, there are situations where you need eye-to-eye contact. No one wants to have an initial oncology meeting by telehealth – doctors or patients – that’s ridiculous,” she said. “But for follow-up visits, patients are now going to be more demanding, and doctors will be more willing.”
The “essential empathy” of oncologists can still “transcend the new physical barriers presented by masks and telehealth,” Schrag and colleagues comment.
“Doctors are figuring out how to deliver empathy by Zoom,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not the same, but we all convey empathy to our elderly relatives over the phone.”
Pandemic impact on oncology
While the crisis has affected all of medicine – dismantling how care is delivered and forcing clinicians to make difficult decisions regarding triage – the fact that some cancers present an immediate threat to survival means that oncology “provides a lens into the major shifts currently underway in clinical care,” Schrag and colleagues write.
They illustrate the point by highlighting systemic chemotherapy, which is provided to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The pandemic has tipped the risk-benefit ratio away from treatments that have a marginal effect on quality or quantity of life, they note. It has forced an “elimination of low-value treatments that were identified by the Choosing Wisely campaign,” the authors write. Up to now, the uptake of recommendations to eliminate these treatments has been slow.
“For example, for most metastatic solid tumors, chemotherapy beyond the third regimen does not improve survival for more than a few weeks; therefore, oncologists are advising supportive care instead. For patients receiving adjuvant therapy for curable cancers, delaying initiation or abbreviating the number of cycles is appropriate. Oncologists are postponing initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for some estrogen receptor–negative stage II breast cancers by 8 weeks and administering 6 rather than 12 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancers,” Schrag and colleagues write.
On the other hand, even in the epicenters of the pandemic, thus far, oncologists are still delivering cancer treatments that have the potential to cure and cannot safely be delayed, they point out. “This includes most patients with new diagnoses of acute leukemia, high-grade lymphoma, and those with chemotherapy-responsive tumors such as testicular, ovarian, and small cell lung cancer. Despite the risks, oncologists are not modifying such treatments because these cancers are likely more lethal than COVID-19.”
It’s the cancer patients who fall in between these two extremes who pose the biggest treatment challenge during this crisis – the patients for whom a delay would have “moderate clinically important adverse influence on quality of life or survival.” In these cases, oncologists are “prescribing marginally less effective regimens that have lower risk of precipitating hospitalization,” the authors note.
These treatments include the use of “white cell growth factor, more stringent neutrophil counts for proceeding with a next cycle of therapy, and omitting use of steroids to manage nausea.” In addition, where possible, oncologists are substituting oral agents for intravenous agents and “myriad other modifications to minimize visits and hospitalizations.”
Most hospitals and outpatient infusion centers now prohibit visitors from accompanying patients, and oncologists are prioritizing conversations with patients about advance directives, healthcare proxies, and end-of-life care preferences. Yet, even here, telehealth offers a new, enhanced layer to those conversations by enabling families to gather with their loved one and the doctor, she said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the most “revolutionary” being a deep dive into telehealth, predicts Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.
“In the space of a month, approaches and accepted norms of cancer care delivery have been transformed of necessity,” Schrag and colleagues write in an article published in JAMA on April 13.
“Most of these changes would not have occurred without the pandemic,” they add. They predict that some changes will last after the crisis is over.
“None of us want to be thrown in the deep end.... On the other hand, sometimes it works,” Schrag told Medscape Medical News.
“The in-person visit between patient and physician has been upended,” she said.
“I don’t think there’s any going back to the way it was before because cancer patients won’t stand for it,” she said. “They’re not going to drive in to get the results of a blood test.
“I think that on balance, of course, there are situations where you need eye-to-eye contact. No one wants to have an initial oncology meeting by telehealth – doctors or patients – that’s ridiculous,” she said. “But for follow-up visits, patients are now going to be more demanding, and doctors will be more willing.”
The “essential empathy” of oncologists can still “transcend the new physical barriers presented by masks and telehealth,” Schrag and colleagues comment.
“Doctors are figuring out how to deliver empathy by Zoom,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not the same, but we all convey empathy to our elderly relatives over the phone.”
Pandemic impact on oncology
While the crisis has affected all of medicine – dismantling how care is delivered and forcing clinicians to make difficult decisions regarding triage – the fact that some cancers present an immediate threat to survival means that oncology “provides a lens into the major shifts currently underway in clinical care,” Schrag and colleagues write.
They illustrate the point by highlighting systemic chemotherapy, which is provided to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The pandemic has tipped the risk-benefit ratio away from treatments that have a marginal effect on quality or quantity of life, they note. It has forced an “elimination of low-value treatments that were identified by the Choosing Wisely campaign,” the authors write. Up to now, the uptake of recommendations to eliminate these treatments has been slow.
“For example, for most metastatic solid tumors, chemotherapy beyond the third regimen does not improve survival for more than a few weeks; therefore, oncologists are advising supportive care instead. For patients receiving adjuvant therapy for curable cancers, delaying initiation or abbreviating the number of cycles is appropriate. Oncologists are postponing initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for some estrogen receptor–negative stage II breast cancers by 8 weeks and administering 6 rather than 12 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancers,” Schrag and colleagues write.
On the other hand, even in the epicenters of the pandemic, thus far, oncologists are still delivering cancer treatments that have the potential to cure and cannot safely be delayed, they point out. “This includes most patients with new diagnoses of acute leukemia, high-grade lymphoma, and those with chemotherapy-responsive tumors such as testicular, ovarian, and small cell lung cancer. Despite the risks, oncologists are not modifying such treatments because these cancers are likely more lethal than COVID-19.”
It’s the cancer patients who fall in between these two extremes who pose the biggest treatment challenge during this crisis – the patients for whom a delay would have “moderate clinically important adverse influence on quality of life or survival.” In these cases, oncologists are “prescribing marginally less effective regimens that have lower risk of precipitating hospitalization,” the authors note.
These treatments include the use of “white cell growth factor, more stringent neutrophil counts for proceeding with a next cycle of therapy, and omitting use of steroids to manage nausea.” In addition, where possible, oncologists are substituting oral agents for intravenous agents and “myriad other modifications to minimize visits and hospitalizations.”
Most hospitals and outpatient infusion centers now prohibit visitors from accompanying patients, and oncologists are prioritizing conversations with patients about advance directives, healthcare proxies, and end-of-life care preferences. Yet, even here, telehealth offers a new, enhanced layer to those conversations by enabling families to gather with their loved one and the doctor, she said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the most “revolutionary” being a deep dive into telehealth, predicts Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.
“In the space of a month, approaches and accepted norms of cancer care delivery have been transformed of necessity,” Schrag and colleagues write in an article published in JAMA on April 13.
“Most of these changes would not have occurred without the pandemic,” they add. They predict that some changes will last after the crisis is over.
“None of us want to be thrown in the deep end.... On the other hand, sometimes it works,” Schrag told Medscape Medical News.
“The in-person visit between patient and physician has been upended,” she said.
“I don’t think there’s any going back to the way it was before because cancer patients won’t stand for it,” she said. “They’re not going to drive in to get the results of a blood test.
“I think that on balance, of course, there are situations where you need eye-to-eye contact. No one wants to have an initial oncology meeting by telehealth – doctors or patients – that’s ridiculous,” she said. “But for follow-up visits, patients are now going to be more demanding, and doctors will be more willing.”
The “essential empathy” of oncologists can still “transcend the new physical barriers presented by masks and telehealth,” Schrag and colleagues comment.
“Doctors are figuring out how to deliver empathy by Zoom,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not the same, but we all convey empathy to our elderly relatives over the phone.”
Pandemic impact on oncology
While the crisis has affected all of medicine – dismantling how care is delivered and forcing clinicians to make difficult decisions regarding triage – the fact that some cancers present an immediate threat to survival means that oncology “provides a lens into the major shifts currently underway in clinical care,” Schrag and colleagues write.
They illustrate the point by highlighting systemic chemotherapy, which is provided to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The pandemic has tipped the risk-benefit ratio away from treatments that have a marginal effect on quality or quantity of life, they note. It has forced an “elimination of low-value treatments that were identified by the Choosing Wisely campaign,” the authors write. Up to now, the uptake of recommendations to eliminate these treatments has been slow.
“For example, for most metastatic solid tumors, chemotherapy beyond the third regimen does not improve survival for more than a few weeks; therefore, oncologists are advising supportive care instead. For patients receiving adjuvant therapy for curable cancers, delaying initiation or abbreviating the number of cycles is appropriate. Oncologists are postponing initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for some estrogen receptor–negative stage II breast cancers by 8 weeks and administering 6 rather than 12 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancers,” Schrag and colleagues write.
On the other hand, even in the epicenters of the pandemic, thus far, oncologists are still delivering cancer treatments that have the potential to cure and cannot safely be delayed, they point out. “This includes most patients with new diagnoses of acute leukemia, high-grade lymphoma, and those with chemotherapy-responsive tumors such as testicular, ovarian, and small cell lung cancer. Despite the risks, oncologists are not modifying such treatments because these cancers are likely more lethal than COVID-19.”
It’s the cancer patients who fall in between these two extremes who pose the biggest treatment challenge during this crisis – the patients for whom a delay would have “moderate clinically important adverse influence on quality of life or survival.” In these cases, oncologists are “prescribing marginally less effective regimens that have lower risk of precipitating hospitalization,” the authors note.
These treatments include the use of “white cell growth factor, more stringent neutrophil counts for proceeding with a next cycle of therapy, and omitting use of steroids to manage nausea.” In addition, where possible, oncologists are substituting oral agents for intravenous agents and “myriad other modifications to minimize visits and hospitalizations.”
Most hospitals and outpatient infusion centers now prohibit visitors from accompanying patients, and oncologists are prioritizing conversations with patients about advance directives, healthcare proxies, and end-of-life care preferences. Yet, even here, telehealth offers a new, enhanced layer to those conversations by enabling families to gather with their loved one and the doctor, she said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Survey reveals gender pay discrepancies among gyn-oncs
After controlling for differences between the genders, the male gynecologic oncologists surveyed were 1.28 times more likely than their female counterparts to earn a salary above the median, according to Katherine M. Croft, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Dr. Croft and colleagues reported findings from the survey in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Of 263 members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who responded to the anonymous survey, 41% were women and 59% were men. The median annual salaries were $380,000 and $500,000 respectively.
“Comparing compensation by gender, there was a $120,000 difference in median salary when you compare them on a surface level,” Dr. Croft said. “Combing through the data further, we found that there were few other differences by gender.”
There were no differences between genders with respect to group size, percentage of protected research time, frequency of call, or geographic location. However, men were more likely to be compensated for extra call and were more likely to respond to obstetrical emergencies, and those differences were statistically significant.
Further, female gynecologic oncologists were younger and had been in practice for fewer years. They also were more likely to work in an academic setting and to work with residents.
“For men, the odds of making above the median salary was 1.28 times that of female providers when controlling for these differences” Dr. Croft said.
Significant compensation differences were noted based on practice setting. When these were substratified by gender, only academic or teaching hospitals and teaching hospital/community hybrids had significant pay differences by gender.
Academic or teaching hospitals comprised the largest subgroup, allowing for further analysis.
“Age and years post fellowship were the only significant differences by gender in this group,” Dr. Croft said. “Again, female providers earned less than their male counterparts, with mean compensation of $349,717, compared with $461,054.”
In fact, less than 25% of women in academic practice in this survey made above the median reported salary, Dr. Croft noted. Controlling not only for differences between male and female providers in this group but also for other known factors affecting compensation, the odds of a male provider making greater than the median salary were 1.77 times that of female providers.
Women represent nearly a third of all practicing physicians, but their salaries continue to lag behind those of men, Dr. Croft noted. She added that “this is the first study that has been presented with regards to gynecologic oncology gender salary discrepancies.”
The findings are limited by survey response bias and a potential lack of data that could explain some of the discrepancies. The study was originally designed to look at on-call compensation, so respondents were not queried about academic ranking or specific work responsibilities. Still, Dr. Croft said the findings point to a need for policy reform to ensure equitable compensation.
“My hope is that these data open a dialogue to further explore discrepancies by gender in our field,” she said.
Dr. Croft reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Croft K et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 15.
After controlling for differences between the genders, the male gynecologic oncologists surveyed were 1.28 times more likely than their female counterparts to earn a salary above the median, according to Katherine M. Croft, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Dr. Croft and colleagues reported findings from the survey in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Of 263 members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who responded to the anonymous survey, 41% were women and 59% were men. The median annual salaries were $380,000 and $500,000 respectively.
“Comparing compensation by gender, there was a $120,000 difference in median salary when you compare them on a surface level,” Dr. Croft said. “Combing through the data further, we found that there were few other differences by gender.”
There were no differences between genders with respect to group size, percentage of protected research time, frequency of call, or geographic location. However, men were more likely to be compensated for extra call and were more likely to respond to obstetrical emergencies, and those differences were statistically significant.
Further, female gynecologic oncologists were younger and had been in practice for fewer years. They also were more likely to work in an academic setting and to work with residents.
“For men, the odds of making above the median salary was 1.28 times that of female providers when controlling for these differences” Dr. Croft said.
Significant compensation differences were noted based on practice setting. When these were substratified by gender, only academic or teaching hospitals and teaching hospital/community hybrids had significant pay differences by gender.
Academic or teaching hospitals comprised the largest subgroup, allowing for further analysis.
“Age and years post fellowship were the only significant differences by gender in this group,” Dr. Croft said. “Again, female providers earned less than their male counterparts, with mean compensation of $349,717, compared with $461,054.”
In fact, less than 25% of women in academic practice in this survey made above the median reported salary, Dr. Croft noted. Controlling not only for differences between male and female providers in this group but also for other known factors affecting compensation, the odds of a male provider making greater than the median salary were 1.77 times that of female providers.
Women represent nearly a third of all practicing physicians, but their salaries continue to lag behind those of men, Dr. Croft noted. She added that “this is the first study that has been presented with regards to gynecologic oncology gender salary discrepancies.”
The findings are limited by survey response bias and a potential lack of data that could explain some of the discrepancies. The study was originally designed to look at on-call compensation, so respondents were not queried about academic ranking or specific work responsibilities. Still, Dr. Croft said the findings point to a need for policy reform to ensure equitable compensation.
“My hope is that these data open a dialogue to further explore discrepancies by gender in our field,” she said.
Dr. Croft reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Croft K et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 15.
After controlling for differences between the genders, the male gynecologic oncologists surveyed were 1.28 times more likely than their female counterparts to earn a salary above the median, according to Katherine M. Croft, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Dr. Croft and colleagues reported findings from the survey in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Of 263 members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who responded to the anonymous survey, 41% were women and 59% were men. The median annual salaries were $380,000 and $500,000 respectively.
“Comparing compensation by gender, there was a $120,000 difference in median salary when you compare them on a surface level,” Dr. Croft said. “Combing through the data further, we found that there were few other differences by gender.”
There were no differences between genders with respect to group size, percentage of protected research time, frequency of call, or geographic location. However, men were more likely to be compensated for extra call and were more likely to respond to obstetrical emergencies, and those differences were statistically significant.
Further, female gynecologic oncologists were younger and had been in practice for fewer years. They also were more likely to work in an academic setting and to work with residents.
“For men, the odds of making above the median salary was 1.28 times that of female providers when controlling for these differences” Dr. Croft said.
Significant compensation differences were noted based on practice setting. When these were substratified by gender, only academic or teaching hospitals and teaching hospital/community hybrids had significant pay differences by gender.
Academic or teaching hospitals comprised the largest subgroup, allowing for further analysis.
“Age and years post fellowship were the only significant differences by gender in this group,” Dr. Croft said. “Again, female providers earned less than their male counterparts, with mean compensation of $349,717, compared with $461,054.”
In fact, less than 25% of women in academic practice in this survey made above the median reported salary, Dr. Croft noted. Controlling not only for differences between male and female providers in this group but also for other known factors affecting compensation, the odds of a male provider making greater than the median salary were 1.77 times that of female providers.
Women represent nearly a third of all practicing physicians, but their salaries continue to lag behind those of men, Dr. Croft noted. She added that “this is the first study that has been presented with regards to gynecologic oncology gender salary discrepancies.”
The findings are limited by survey response bias and a potential lack of data that could explain some of the discrepancies. The study was originally designed to look at on-call compensation, so respondents were not queried about academic ranking or specific work responsibilities. Still, Dr. Croft said the findings point to a need for policy reform to ensure equitable compensation.
“My hope is that these data open a dialogue to further explore discrepancies by gender in our field,” she said.
Dr. Croft reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Croft K et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 15.
FROM SGO 2020
Oncologists need to advocate for scarce COVID-19 resources: ASCO
both at the institutional and regional level, according to new recommendations from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“There was a lot of concern from the oncology community that if a patient had cancer, they would be arbitrarily excluded from consideration for critical care resources,” said Jonathan M. Marron, MD, chair-elect of ASCO’s Ethics Committee and lead author of the recommendations.
“The hope is that we’ll never have to make any of these decisions ... but the primary reason for putting together these recommendations was that if such decisions have to be made, we hope to inform them,” he told Medscape Medical News.
Marron, who is a pediatric hematologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, says ASCO’s main recommendation is that decisions about the allocation of resources must be separated from bedside clinical care, meaning that clinicians who are caring for individual patients should not also be the ones making the allocation decisions.
“Those dueling responsibilities are a conflict of interest and make that physician unable to make an unbiased decision,” he said.
“It’s also just an unbearable burden to try and do those two things simultaneously,” he added. “It’s an incredible burden to do them individually, but it’s multifold worse to try to do them both simultaneously.”
He said the vital role of oncologists who provide treatment is to offer the kind of personalized information that triage committees need in order to make appropriate decisions.
“They should be asked – maybe even must be asked – to provide the most high-quality evidence-based data about their patients’ diagnosis and prognosis,” Marron commented. “Because oncology is evolving so rapidly, and cancer is so many different diseases, it’s impossible for someone making these decisions to know everything they would need to know about why this patient is likely to survive their cancer and this patient is not.”
He says that during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns regarding public health transcend the well-being of individual patients and that consideration must be given to providing the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people.
“That makes perfect sense and is the appropriate and laudable goal during a public health emergency like this ... but one of the challenges is that there is this belief that a diagnosis of cancer is uniformly fatal,” Marron said.
“It’s certainly conceivable that it would be a better use of resources to give the last ventilator to a young, otherwise healthy patient rather than a patient with multiply recurrent progressive metastatic cancer,” he continued. “However, we want to ensure that there is at least a discussion where that information is made available, rather than just saying, ‘She’s got cancer. She’s a lost cause.’ ”
Cancer patients are doing very well
Concerns about cancer misconceptions have been circulating in the oncology community since the start of the pandemic. “It’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays, and even with a diagnosis of cancer, they can potentially live for many years,” Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, from the Smilow Cancer Network, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News in a recent interview.
Thus far, even in hard-hit New York City, fears that cancer patients may not be receiving appropriate care have not materialized, according to Mark Robson, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). “I would emphasize that cancer patients are ABSOLUTELY getting the care they need, including patients with metastatic disease,” he recently tweeted. “NOONE at @sloan_kettering (or anywhere else) is being ‘triaged’ because of advanced cancer. Period.”
Robson told Medscape Medical News that although MSKCC continues to provide oncology care to patients with cancer, “we are [also] treating them if they develop COVID. ... I am trying to help pivot the institution towards care in this setting.”
He said he agrees with Craig Spencer, MD, MPH, director of global health in emergency medicine at the New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, who recently tweeted, “If you need a ventilator, you get a ventilator. Let’s be clear – this isn’t being ‘rationed.’ ”
Marron emphasized that an important safeguard against uninformed decision making is appropriate planning. For hospitalized patients, this means oncologists who provide treatment should offer information even before it is requested. But he said the “duty to plan” begins long before that.
“Clinicians haven’t always been great at talking about death and long-term outcomes with their patients, but this really cranks up the importance of having those conversations, and having them early, even though it’s incredibly hard. If someone has expressed that they would never want to be put on a ventilator, it’s important now even more so that is made clear,” he said.
He said early responses to the ASCO statement suggest that it has calmed some concerns in the oncology community, “but it still remains to be seen whether individual institutions will take this to heart, because this unto itself cannot enforce anything – it is up to individual institutions. I am hopeful this will get to the people it needs to get to.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
both at the institutional and regional level, according to new recommendations from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“There was a lot of concern from the oncology community that if a patient had cancer, they would be arbitrarily excluded from consideration for critical care resources,” said Jonathan M. Marron, MD, chair-elect of ASCO’s Ethics Committee and lead author of the recommendations.
“The hope is that we’ll never have to make any of these decisions ... but the primary reason for putting together these recommendations was that if such decisions have to be made, we hope to inform them,” he told Medscape Medical News.
Marron, who is a pediatric hematologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, says ASCO’s main recommendation is that decisions about the allocation of resources must be separated from bedside clinical care, meaning that clinicians who are caring for individual patients should not also be the ones making the allocation decisions.
“Those dueling responsibilities are a conflict of interest and make that physician unable to make an unbiased decision,” he said.
“It’s also just an unbearable burden to try and do those two things simultaneously,” he added. “It’s an incredible burden to do them individually, but it’s multifold worse to try to do them both simultaneously.”
He said the vital role of oncologists who provide treatment is to offer the kind of personalized information that triage committees need in order to make appropriate decisions.
“They should be asked – maybe even must be asked – to provide the most high-quality evidence-based data about their patients’ diagnosis and prognosis,” Marron commented. “Because oncology is evolving so rapidly, and cancer is so many different diseases, it’s impossible for someone making these decisions to know everything they would need to know about why this patient is likely to survive their cancer and this patient is not.”
He says that during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns regarding public health transcend the well-being of individual patients and that consideration must be given to providing the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people.
“That makes perfect sense and is the appropriate and laudable goal during a public health emergency like this ... but one of the challenges is that there is this belief that a diagnosis of cancer is uniformly fatal,” Marron said.
“It’s certainly conceivable that it would be a better use of resources to give the last ventilator to a young, otherwise healthy patient rather than a patient with multiply recurrent progressive metastatic cancer,” he continued. “However, we want to ensure that there is at least a discussion where that information is made available, rather than just saying, ‘She’s got cancer. She’s a lost cause.’ ”
Cancer patients are doing very well
Concerns about cancer misconceptions have been circulating in the oncology community since the start of the pandemic. “It’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays, and even with a diagnosis of cancer, they can potentially live for many years,” Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, from the Smilow Cancer Network, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News in a recent interview.
Thus far, even in hard-hit New York City, fears that cancer patients may not be receiving appropriate care have not materialized, according to Mark Robson, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). “I would emphasize that cancer patients are ABSOLUTELY getting the care they need, including patients with metastatic disease,” he recently tweeted. “NOONE at @sloan_kettering (or anywhere else) is being ‘triaged’ because of advanced cancer. Period.”
Robson told Medscape Medical News that although MSKCC continues to provide oncology care to patients with cancer, “we are [also] treating them if they develop COVID. ... I am trying to help pivot the institution towards care in this setting.”
He said he agrees with Craig Spencer, MD, MPH, director of global health in emergency medicine at the New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, who recently tweeted, “If you need a ventilator, you get a ventilator. Let’s be clear – this isn’t being ‘rationed.’ ”
Marron emphasized that an important safeguard against uninformed decision making is appropriate planning. For hospitalized patients, this means oncologists who provide treatment should offer information even before it is requested. But he said the “duty to plan” begins long before that.
“Clinicians haven’t always been great at talking about death and long-term outcomes with their patients, but this really cranks up the importance of having those conversations, and having them early, even though it’s incredibly hard. If someone has expressed that they would never want to be put on a ventilator, it’s important now even more so that is made clear,” he said.
He said early responses to the ASCO statement suggest that it has calmed some concerns in the oncology community, “but it still remains to be seen whether individual institutions will take this to heart, because this unto itself cannot enforce anything – it is up to individual institutions. I am hopeful this will get to the people it needs to get to.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
both at the institutional and regional level, according to new recommendations from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“There was a lot of concern from the oncology community that if a patient had cancer, they would be arbitrarily excluded from consideration for critical care resources,” said Jonathan M. Marron, MD, chair-elect of ASCO’s Ethics Committee and lead author of the recommendations.
“The hope is that we’ll never have to make any of these decisions ... but the primary reason for putting together these recommendations was that if such decisions have to be made, we hope to inform them,” he told Medscape Medical News.
Marron, who is a pediatric hematologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, says ASCO’s main recommendation is that decisions about the allocation of resources must be separated from bedside clinical care, meaning that clinicians who are caring for individual patients should not also be the ones making the allocation decisions.
“Those dueling responsibilities are a conflict of interest and make that physician unable to make an unbiased decision,” he said.
“It’s also just an unbearable burden to try and do those two things simultaneously,” he added. “It’s an incredible burden to do them individually, but it’s multifold worse to try to do them both simultaneously.”
He said the vital role of oncologists who provide treatment is to offer the kind of personalized information that triage committees need in order to make appropriate decisions.
“They should be asked – maybe even must be asked – to provide the most high-quality evidence-based data about their patients’ diagnosis and prognosis,” Marron commented. “Because oncology is evolving so rapidly, and cancer is so many different diseases, it’s impossible for someone making these decisions to know everything they would need to know about why this patient is likely to survive their cancer and this patient is not.”
He says that during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns regarding public health transcend the well-being of individual patients and that consideration must be given to providing the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people.
“That makes perfect sense and is the appropriate and laudable goal during a public health emergency like this ... but one of the challenges is that there is this belief that a diagnosis of cancer is uniformly fatal,” Marron said.
“It’s certainly conceivable that it would be a better use of resources to give the last ventilator to a young, otherwise healthy patient rather than a patient with multiply recurrent progressive metastatic cancer,” he continued. “However, we want to ensure that there is at least a discussion where that information is made available, rather than just saying, ‘She’s got cancer. She’s a lost cause.’ ”
Cancer patients are doing very well
Concerns about cancer misconceptions have been circulating in the oncology community since the start of the pandemic. “It’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays, and even with a diagnosis of cancer, they can potentially live for many years,” Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, from the Smilow Cancer Network, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News in a recent interview.
Thus far, even in hard-hit New York City, fears that cancer patients may not be receiving appropriate care have not materialized, according to Mark Robson, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). “I would emphasize that cancer patients are ABSOLUTELY getting the care they need, including patients with metastatic disease,” he recently tweeted. “NOONE at @sloan_kettering (or anywhere else) is being ‘triaged’ because of advanced cancer. Period.”
Robson told Medscape Medical News that although MSKCC continues to provide oncology care to patients with cancer, “we are [also] treating them if they develop COVID. ... I am trying to help pivot the institution towards care in this setting.”
He said he agrees with Craig Spencer, MD, MPH, director of global health in emergency medicine at the New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, who recently tweeted, “If you need a ventilator, you get a ventilator. Let’s be clear – this isn’t being ‘rationed.’ ”
Marron emphasized that an important safeguard against uninformed decision making is appropriate planning. For hospitalized patients, this means oncologists who provide treatment should offer information even before it is requested. But he said the “duty to plan” begins long before that.
“Clinicians haven’t always been great at talking about death and long-term outcomes with their patients, but this really cranks up the importance of having those conversations, and having them early, even though it’s incredibly hard. If someone has expressed that they would never want to be put on a ventilator, it’s important now even more so that is made clear,” he said.
He said early responses to the ASCO statement suggest that it has calmed some concerns in the oncology community, “but it still remains to be seen whether individual institutions will take this to heart, because this unto itself cannot enforce anything – it is up to individual institutions. I am hopeful this will get to the people it needs to get to.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Managing gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic
To manage patients with gynecologic cancers, oncologists in the United States and Europe are recommending reducing outpatient visits, delaying surgeries, prolonging chemotherapy regimens, and generally trying to keep cancer patients away from those who have tested positive for COVID-19.
“We recognize that, in this special situation, we must continue to provide our gynecologic oncology patients with the highest quality of medical services,” Pedro T. Ramirez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and associates wrote in an editorial published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.
At the same time, the authors added, the safety of patients, their families, and medical staff needs to be assured.
Dr. Ramirez and colleagues’ editorial includes recommendations on how to optimize the care of patients with gynecologic cancers while prioritizing safety and minimizing the burden to the healthcare system. The group’s recommendations outline when surgery, radiotherapy, and other treatments might be safely postponed and when they need to proceed out of urgency.
Some authors of the editorial also described their experiences with COVID-19 during a webinar on managing patients with advanced ovarian cancer, which was hosted by the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO).
A lack of resources
In Spain, health resources “are collapsed” by the pandemic, editorial author Luis Chiva, MD, said during the webinar.
At his institution, the Clínica Universidad de Navarra in Madrid, 98% of the 1,500 intensive care beds were occupied by COVID-19 patients at the end of March. So the hope was to be able to refer their patients to other communities where there may still be some capacity.
Another problem in Spain is the high percentage of health workers infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. More than 15,000 health workers were recently reported to be sick or self-isolating, which is around 14% of the health care workforce in the country.
Dr. Chiva noted that this puts those treating gynecologic cancers in a difficult position. On the one hand, surgery to remove a high-risk ovarian mass should not be delayed, but the majority of hospitals in Spain simply cannot perform this type of surgery during the pandemic.
“Unfortunately, due to this specific situation, almost, I would say in 80%-90% of hospitals, we are only able to carry out emergency surgical procedures,” Dr. Chiva said. That’s general emergency procedures such as appendectomies, removing blockages, and dealing with hemorrhages, not gynecologic surgeries. “It’s almost impossible to schedule the typical oncological cases,” he said.
Even with the Hospital IFEMA now set up at the Feria de Madrid, which is usually used to host large-scale events, there are “minimal options for performing standard oncological surgery,” Dr. Chiva said. He estimated that just 5% of hospitals in Spain are able to perform oncologic surgeries as normal, with maybe 15% able to offer surgery without the backup of postsurgical intensive care.
‘Ring-fencing’
“This is really an unusual time for us,” commented Jonathan Ledermann, MD, vice president of ESGO and a professor of medical oncology at University College London, who moderated the webinar.
“This is affecting the way in which we diagnose our patients and have access to care,” he said. “It compromises the way in which we treat patients. We have to adjust our treatment pathways. We have to look at the risks of coronavirus infection in cancer patients and how we manage patients in a socially distancing environment. We also need to think about managing gynecological oncology departments in the face of disease amongst staff, the risks of transmission, and the reduced clinical service.”
Dr. Ledermann noted that “ring-fencing” a few hospitals to deal only with patients free of COVID-19 might be a way forward. This approach has been used in Northern Italy and was recently started in London.
“We try to divide and have separate access between COVID-positive and -negative patients,” said Anna Fagotti, MD, an assistant professor at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS in Rome and another coauthor of the editorial.
“We are trying to divide the work flow of patients and try to ensure treatment to cancer patients as much as we can,” she explained. “This means that it’s a very difficult situation, and, every time, you have to deal with the number of places available as some places have been taken by other patients from the emergency room. We are still trying to have a number of beds and intensive care unit beds available for our patients.”
Setting up dedicated hospitals is a good idea, but it has to be done before the “tsunami” of cases hits and there are no more intensive care beds or ventilators, according to Antonio González-Martín, MD, of Clínica Universidad de Navarra in Madrid, another coauthor of the editorial.
Limiting hospital visits
Strategies to limit the number of times patients need to come into hospital for appointments and treatment is key to getting through the pandemic, Sandro Pignata, MD, of Instituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale in Naples, Italy, said during the webinar.
“It will be imperative to explore options that reduce the number of procedures or surgical interventions that may be associated with prolonged operative time, risk of major blood loss, necessitating blood products, risk of infection to the medical personnel, or admission to intensive care units,” Dr. Ramirez and colleagues wrote in their editorial.
“In considering management of disease, we must recognize that, in many centers, access to routine visits and surgery may be either completely restricted or significantly reduced. We must, therefore, consider options that may still offer our patients a treatment plan that addresses their disease while at the same time limiting risk of exposure,” the authors wrote.
The authors declared no competing interests or specific funding in relation to their work, and the webinar participants had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ramirez PT et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001419.
To manage patients with gynecologic cancers, oncologists in the United States and Europe are recommending reducing outpatient visits, delaying surgeries, prolonging chemotherapy regimens, and generally trying to keep cancer patients away from those who have tested positive for COVID-19.
“We recognize that, in this special situation, we must continue to provide our gynecologic oncology patients with the highest quality of medical services,” Pedro T. Ramirez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and associates wrote in an editorial published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.
At the same time, the authors added, the safety of patients, their families, and medical staff needs to be assured.
Dr. Ramirez and colleagues’ editorial includes recommendations on how to optimize the care of patients with gynecologic cancers while prioritizing safety and minimizing the burden to the healthcare system. The group’s recommendations outline when surgery, radiotherapy, and other treatments might be safely postponed and when they need to proceed out of urgency.
Some authors of the editorial also described their experiences with COVID-19 during a webinar on managing patients with advanced ovarian cancer, which was hosted by the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO).
A lack of resources
In Spain, health resources “are collapsed” by the pandemic, editorial author Luis Chiva, MD, said during the webinar.
At his institution, the Clínica Universidad de Navarra in Madrid, 98% of the 1,500 intensive care beds were occupied by COVID-19 patients at the end of March. So the hope was to be able to refer their patients to other communities where there may still be some capacity.
Another problem in Spain is the high percentage of health workers infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. More than 15,000 health workers were recently reported to be sick or self-isolating, which is around 14% of the health care workforce in the country.
Dr. Chiva noted that this puts those treating gynecologic cancers in a difficult position. On the one hand, surgery to remove a high-risk ovarian mass should not be delayed, but the majority of hospitals in Spain simply cannot perform this type of surgery during the pandemic.
“Unfortunately, due to this specific situation, almost, I would say in 80%-90% of hospitals, we are only able to carry out emergency surgical procedures,” Dr. Chiva said. That’s general emergency procedures such as appendectomies, removing blockages, and dealing with hemorrhages, not gynecologic surgeries. “It’s almost impossible to schedule the typical oncological cases,” he said.
Even with the Hospital IFEMA now set up at the Feria de Madrid, which is usually used to host large-scale events, there are “minimal options for performing standard oncological surgery,” Dr. Chiva said. He estimated that just 5% of hospitals in Spain are able to perform oncologic surgeries as normal, with maybe 15% able to offer surgery without the backup of postsurgical intensive care.
‘Ring-fencing’
“This is really an unusual time for us,” commented Jonathan Ledermann, MD, vice president of ESGO and a professor of medical oncology at University College London, who moderated the webinar.
“This is affecting the way in which we diagnose our patients and have access to care,” he said. “It compromises the way in which we treat patients. We have to adjust our treatment pathways. We have to look at the risks of coronavirus infection in cancer patients and how we manage patients in a socially distancing environment. We also need to think about managing gynecological oncology departments in the face of disease amongst staff, the risks of transmission, and the reduced clinical service.”
Dr. Ledermann noted that “ring-fencing” a few hospitals to deal only with patients free of COVID-19 might be a way forward. This approach has been used in Northern Italy and was recently started in London.
“We try to divide and have separate access between COVID-positive and -negative patients,” said Anna Fagotti, MD, an assistant professor at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS in Rome and another coauthor of the editorial.
“We are trying to divide the work flow of patients and try to ensure treatment to cancer patients as much as we can,” she explained. “This means that it’s a very difficult situation, and, every time, you have to deal with the number of places available as some places have been taken by other patients from the emergency room. We are still trying to have a number of beds and intensive care unit beds available for our patients.”
Setting up dedicated hospitals is a good idea, but it has to be done before the “tsunami” of cases hits and there are no more intensive care beds or ventilators, according to Antonio González-Martín, MD, of Clínica Universidad de Navarra in Madrid, another coauthor of the editorial.
Limiting hospital visits
Strategies to limit the number of times patients need to come into hospital for appointments and treatment is key to getting through the pandemic, Sandro Pignata, MD, of Instituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale in Naples, Italy, said during the webinar.
“It will be imperative to explore options that reduce the number of procedures or surgical interventions that may be associated with prolonged operative time, risk of major blood loss, necessitating blood products, risk of infection to the medical personnel, or admission to intensive care units,” Dr. Ramirez and colleagues wrote in their editorial.
“In considering management of disease, we must recognize that, in many centers, access to routine visits and surgery may be either completely restricted or significantly reduced. We must, therefore, consider options that may still offer our patients a treatment plan that addresses their disease while at the same time limiting risk of exposure,” the authors wrote.
The authors declared no competing interests or specific funding in relation to their work, and the webinar participants had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ramirez PT et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001419.
To manage patients with gynecologic cancers, oncologists in the United States and Europe are recommending reducing outpatient visits, delaying surgeries, prolonging chemotherapy regimens, and generally trying to keep cancer patients away from those who have tested positive for COVID-19.
“We recognize that, in this special situation, we must continue to provide our gynecologic oncology patients with the highest quality of medical services,” Pedro T. Ramirez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and associates wrote in an editorial published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.
At the same time, the authors added, the safety of patients, their families, and medical staff needs to be assured.
Dr. Ramirez and colleagues’ editorial includes recommendations on how to optimize the care of patients with gynecologic cancers while prioritizing safety and minimizing the burden to the healthcare system. The group’s recommendations outline when surgery, radiotherapy, and other treatments might be safely postponed and when they need to proceed out of urgency.
Some authors of the editorial also described their experiences with COVID-19 during a webinar on managing patients with advanced ovarian cancer, which was hosted by the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO).
A lack of resources
In Spain, health resources “are collapsed” by the pandemic, editorial author Luis Chiva, MD, said during the webinar.
At his institution, the Clínica Universidad de Navarra in Madrid, 98% of the 1,500 intensive care beds were occupied by COVID-19 patients at the end of March. So the hope was to be able to refer their patients to other communities where there may still be some capacity.
Another problem in Spain is the high percentage of health workers infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. More than 15,000 health workers were recently reported to be sick or self-isolating, which is around 14% of the health care workforce in the country.
Dr. Chiva noted that this puts those treating gynecologic cancers in a difficult position. On the one hand, surgery to remove a high-risk ovarian mass should not be delayed, but the majority of hospitals in Spain simply cannot perform this type of surgery during the pandemic.
“Unfortunately, due to this specific situation, almost, I would say in 80%-90% of hospitals, we are only able to carry out emergency surgical procedures,” Dr. Chiva said. That’s general emergency procedures such as appendectomies, removing blockages, and dealing with hemorrhages, not gynecologic surgeries. “It’s almost impossible to schedule the typical oncological cases,” he said.
Even with the Hospital IFEMA now set up at the Feria de Madrid, which is usually used to host large-scale events, there are “minimal options for performing standard oncological surgery,” Dr. Chiva said. He estimated that just 5% of hospitals in Spain are able to perform oncologic surgeries as normal, with maybe 15% able to offer surgery without the backup of postsurgical intensive care.
‘Ring-fencing’
“This is really an unusual time for us,” commented Jonathan Ledermann, MD, vice president of ESGO and a professor of medical oncology at University College London, who moderated the webinar.
“This is affecting the way in which we diagnose our patients and have access to care,” he said. “It compromises the way in which we treat patients. We have to adjust our treatment pathways. We have to look at the risks of coronavirus infection in cancer patients and how we manage patients in a socially distancing environment. We also need to think about managing gynecological oncology departments in the face of disease amongst staff, the risks of transmission, and the reduced clinical service.”
Dr. Ledermann noted that “ring-fencing” a few hospitals to deal only with patients free of COVID-19 might be a way forward. This approach has been used in Northern Italy and was recently started in London.
“We try to divide and have separate access between COVID-positive and -negative patients,” said Anna Fagotti, MD, an assistant professor at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS in Rome and another coauthor of the editorial.
“We are trying to divide the work flow of patients and try to ensure treatment to cancer patients as much as we can,” she explained. “This means that it’s a very difficult situation, and, every time, you have to deal with the number of places available as some places have been taken by other patients from the emergency room. We are still trying to have a number of beds and intensive care unit beds available for our patients.”
Setting up dedicated hospitals is a good idea, but it has to be done before the “tsunami” of cases hits and there are no more intensive care beds or ventilators, according to Antonio González-Martín, MD, of Clínica Universidad de Navarra in Madrid, another coauthor of the editorial.
Limiting hospital visits
Strategies to limit the number of times patients need to come into hospital for appointments and treatment is key to getting through the pandemic, Sandro Pignata, MD, of Instituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale in Naples, Italy, said during the webinar.
“It will be imperative to explore options that reduce the number of procedures or surgical interventions that may be associated with prolonged operative time, risk of major blood loss, necessitating blood products, risk of infection to the medical personnel, or admission to intensive care units,” Dr. Ramirez and colleagues wrote in their editorial.
“In considering management of disease, we must recognize that, in many centers, access to routine visits and surgery may be either completely restricted or significantly reduced. We must, therefore, consider options that may still offer our patients a treatment plan that addresses their disease while at the same time limiting risk of exposure,” the authors wrote.
The authors declared no competing interests or specific funding in relation to their work, and the webinar participants had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ramirez PT et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001419.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER
Most endometrial cancers treated with minimally invasive procedures
Of 3,730 women with endometrial cancer in the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Outcomes Registry (SGO-COR), 88.8% underwent minimally invasive procedures, reported Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues.
“When you have surgery with a gyn-oncologist who is specially trained in this type of surgery, we see that women have a very high likelihood of having the appropriate surgery, the minimally invasive surgery, and we thought that this benchmark of an 80% rate of minimally invasive surgery in these patients is very feasible and should be recognized as the standard of care,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in an interview.
Coinvestigator Summer B. Dewdney, MD, of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was instrumental in creating and running the SGO-COR registry, said these findings are encouraging.
“We’re happy to see that rate. It’s the rate that it should be because minimally invasive surgery is the standard of care for endometrial cancer,” Dr. Dewdney said. She added, however, that data supplied to the registry come from gynecologic oncologists who are highly motivated to participate and follow best practice guidelines, which could skew the results slightly toward more favorable outcomes.
Results of the registry-based study are detailed in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Assessing adherence to guidelines
In 2015, the SGO Clinical Practice Committee and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin, which stated that “minimally invasive surgery should be embraced as the standard surgical approach for comprehensive surgical staging in women with endometrial cancer.”
Similarly, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for uterine cancer state that “minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach when technically feasible” for treatment of endometrial cancer confined to the uterus.
Despite these recommendations, the overall rate of minimally invasive endometrial cancer surgery in the United States is reported be around to 60%, Dr. Nickles Fader and colleagues wrote.
With this in mind, the investigators set out to determine the rate of minimally invasive surgery in women with apparent stage I, II, or III endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy with or without staging from 2012 to 2017 at a center reporting to SGO-COR.
The team identified 3,730 women treated at 25 SGO-COR centers; 12 of which were university-affiliated centers and 13 of which were nonuniversity based. Most patients (83.2%) had stage I disease, 4.7% had stage II cancer, and 12.1% had stage III disease. The median patient age was 57 years. Most patients (88%) were white, and two-thirds (67.1%) were obese. In all, 80.4% of samples had endometrioid histology, and 77.7% were either grade 1 or 2.
Factors associated with minimally invasive surgery
The data showed that 88.8% of patients underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy, composed of robotic-assisted procedures in 73.9% of cases, laparoscopy in 13.4%, and vaginal access in 1.6%.
The proportion of patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure was significantly higher at nonuniversity centers, compared with academic centers (92.6% vs. 82.7%; P < .0001), but rates of minimally invasive procedures did not differ significantly across U.S. geographic regions.
Dr. Dewdney said that the higher proportion of open surgeries performed at university centers may be attributable to those centers treating patients with more advanced disease or rare aggressive cancers that may not be amenable to a minimally invasive approach.
In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with a failure to perform minimally invasive surgery were black race of the patient (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57), body mass index over 35 kg/m2 (aOR, 1.40), stage II disease (aOR, 0.49), stage III disease (aOR, 0.36), carcinosarcoma/leiomyosarcoma (aOR, 0.58), and university hospital (aOR, 3.46).
Looking at perioperative complications, the investigators found that laparotomy was associated with more in-hospital complications than minimally invasive procedures, including more unscheduled ICU stays (P < .001) and prolonged hospital stays (P = .0002).
Dr. Dewdney said that investigators are planning further registry-based studies focusing on ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and cervical cancer.
Dr. Nickles Fader and Dr. Dewdney reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Nickles Fader A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 63.
Of 3,730 women with endometrial cancer in the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Outcomes Registry (SGO-COR), 88.8% underwent minimally invasive procedures, reported Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues.
“When you have surgery with a gyn-oncologist who is specially trained in this type of surgery, we see that women have a very high likelihood of having the appropriate surgery, the minimally invasive surgery, and we thought that this benchmark of an 80% rate of minimally invasive surgery in these patients is very feasible and should be recognized as the standard of care,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in an interview.
Coinvestigator Summer B. Dewdney, MD, of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was instrumental in creating and running the SGO-COR registry, said these findings are encouraging.
“We’re happy to see that rate. It’s the rate that it should be because minimally invasive surgery is the standard of care for endometrial cancer,” Dr. Dewdney said. She added, however, that data supplied to the registry come from gynecologic oncologists who are highly motivated to participate and follow best practice guidelines, which could skew the results slightly toward more favorable outcomes.
Results of the registry-based study are detailed in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Assessing adherence to guidelines
In 2015, the SGO Clinical Practice Committee and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin, which stated that “minimally invasive surgery should be embraced as the standard surgical approach for comprehensive surgical staging in women with endometrial cancer.”
Similarly, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for uterine cancer state that “minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach when technically feasible” for treatment of endometrial cancer confined to the uterus.
Despite these recommendations, the overall rate of minimally invasive endometrial cancer surgery in the United States is reported be around to 60%, Dr. Nickles Fader and colleagues wrote.
With this in mind, the investigators set out to determine the rate of minimally invasive surgery in women with apparent stage I, II, or III endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy with or without staging from 2012 to 2017 at a center reporting to SGO-COR.
The team identified 3,730 women treated at 25 SGO-COR centers; 12 of which were university-affiliated centers and 13 of which were nonuniversity based. Most patients (83.2%) had stage I disease, 4.7% had stage II cancer, and 12.1% had stage III disease. The median patient age was 57 years. Most patients (88%) were white, and two-thirds (67.1%) were obese. In all, 80.4% of samples had endometrioid histology, and 77.7% were either grade 1 or 2.
Factors associated with minimally invasive surgery
The data showed that 88.8% of patients underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy, composed of robotic-assisted procedures in 73.9% of cases, laparoscopy in 13.4%, and vaginal access in 1.6%.
The proportion of patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure was significantly higher at nonuniversity centers, compared with academic centers (92.6% vs. 82.7%; P < .0001), but rates of minimally invasive procedures did not differ significantly across U.S. geographic regions.
Dr. Dewdney said that the higher proportion of open surgeries performed at university centers may be attributable to those centers treating patients with more advanced disease or rare aggressive cancers that may not be amenable to a minimally invasive approach.
In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with a failure to perform minimally invasive surgery were black race of the patient (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57), body mass index over 35 kg/m2 (aOR, 1.40), stage II disease (aOR, 0.49), stage III disease (aOR, 0.36), carcinosarcoma/leiomyosarcoma (aOR, 0.58), and university hospital (aOR, 3.46).
Looking at perioperative complications, the investigators found that laparotomy was associated with more in-hospital complications than minimally invasive procedures, including more unscheduled ICU stays (P < .001) and prolonged hospital stays (P = .0002).
Dr. Dewdney said that investigators are planning further registry-based studies focusing on ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and cervical cancer.
Dr. Nickles Fader and Dr. Dewdney reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Nickles Fader A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 63.
Of 3,730 women with endometrial cancer in the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Outcomes Registry (SGO-COR), 88.8% underwent minimally invasive procedures, reported Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues.
“When you have surgery with a gyn-oncologist who is specially trained in this type of surgery, we see that women have a very high likelihood of having the appropriate surgery, the minimally invasive surgery, and we thought that this benchmark of an 80% rate of minimally invasive surgery in these patients is very feasible and should be recognized as the standard of care,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in an interview.
Coinvestigator Summer B. Dewdney, MD, of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was instrumental in creating and running the SGO-COR registry, said these findings are encouraging.
“We’re happy to see that rate. It’s the rate that it should be because minimally invasive surgery is the standard of care for endometrial cancer,” Dr. Dewdney said. She added, however, that data supplied to the registry come from gynecologic oncologists who are highly motivated to participate and follow best practice guidelines, which could skew the results slightly toward more favorable outcomes.
Results of the registry-based study are detailed in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Assessing adherence to guidelines
In 2015, the SGO Clinical Practice Committee and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin, which stated that “minimally invasive surgery should be embraced as the standard surgical approach for comprehensive surgical staging in women with endometrial cancer.”
Similarly, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for uterine cancer state that “minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach when technically feasible” for treatment of endometrial cancer confined to the uterus.
Despite these recommendations, the overall rate of minimally invasive endometrial cancer surgery in the United States is reported be around to 60%, Dr. Nickles Fader and colleagues wrote.
With this in mind, the investigators set out to determine the rate of minimally invasive surgery in women with apparent stage I, II, or III endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy with or without staging from 2012 to 2017 at a center reporting to SGO-COR.
The team identified 3,730 women treated at 25 SGO-COR centers; 12 of which were university-affiliated centers and 13 of which were nonuniversity based. Most patients (83.2%) had stage I disease, 4.7% had stage II cancer, and 12.1% had stage III disease. The median patient age was 57 years. Most patients (88%) were white, and two-thirds (67.1%) were obese. In all, 80.4% of samples had endometrioid histology, and 77.7% were either grade 1 or 2.
Factors associated with minimally invasive surgery
The data showed that 88.8% of patients underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy, composed of robotic-assisted procedures in 73.9% of cases, laparoscopy in 13.4%, and vaginal access in 1.6%.
The proportion of patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure was significantly higher at nonuniversity centers, compared with academic centers (92.6% vs. 82.7%; P < .0001), but rates of minimally invasive procedures did not differ significantly across U.S. geographic regions.
Dr. Dewdney said that the higher proportion of open surgeries performed at university centers may be attributable to those centers treating patients with more advanced disease or rare aggressive cancers that may not be amenable to a minimally invasive approach.
In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with a failure to perform minimally invasive surgery were black race of the patient (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57), body mass index over 35 kg/m2 (aOR, 1.40), stage II disease (aOR, 0.49), stage III disease (aOR, 0.36), carcinosarcoma/leiomyosarcoma (aOR, 0.58), and university hospital (aOR, 3.46).
Looking at perioperative complications, the investigators found that laparotomy was associated with more in-hospital complications than minimally invasive procedures, including more unscheduled ICU stays (P < .001) and prolonged hospital stays (P = .0002).
Dr. Dewdney said that investigators are planning further registry-based studies focusing on ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and cervical cancer.
Dr. Nickles Fader and Dr. Dewdney reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Nickles Fader A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 63.
FROM SGO 2020
ASCO announces its own COVID-19 and cancer registry
Data will not be commercialized, unlike CancerLinQ
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.
The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.
In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.
The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.
The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.
Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.
CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.
Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.
Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.
ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.
ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.
ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.
The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Data will not be commercialized, unlike CancerLinQ
Data will not be commercialized, unlike CancerLinQ
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.
The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.
In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.
The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.
The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.
Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.
CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.
Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.
Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.
ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.
ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.
ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.
The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.
The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.
In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.
The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.
The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.
Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.
CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.
Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.
Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.
ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.
ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.
ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.
The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer prevalence among COVID-19 patients may be higher than previously reported
An early report pegged the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients at 1%, but authors of a recent meta-analysis found an overall prevalence of 2% and up to 3% depending on the subset of data they reviewed.
However, those findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the studies published to date, according to the authors of the meta-analysis, led by Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
Nevertheless, the results do confirm that cancer patients and survivors are an important at-risk population for COVID-19, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“We hope that additional data from China and Italy will provide information on the characteristics of patients with cancer at risk, types of cancer that confer higher risk, and systemic regimens that may increase COVID-19 infection complications,” the authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology.
More than 15 million individuals with cancer and many more cancer survivors are at increased risk of COVID-19 because of compromised immune systems, according to the authors.
Exactly how many individuals with cancer are among the COVID-19 cases remains unclear, though a previous report suggested the prevalence of cancer was 1% (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.65%) among COVID-19 patients in China (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7). This “seems to be higher” than the 0.29% prevalence of cancer in the overall Chinese population, the investigators noted at the time.
That study revealed 18 cancer patients among 1,590 COVID-19 cases, though it was “hypothesis generating,” according to Dr. Desai and colleagues, who rolled that data into their meta-analysis of 11 reports including 3,661 COVID-19 cases.
Overall, Dr. Desai and colleagues found the pooled prevalence of cancer was 2.0% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.0%) in that population. In a subgroup analysis of five studies with sample sizes of less than 100 COVID-19 patients, the researchers found a “slightly higher” prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.0%).
However, even that data wasn’t robust enough for Dr. Desai and colleagues to make any pronouncements on cancer prevalence. “Overall, current evidence on the association between cancer and COVID-19 remains inconclusive,” they wrote.
Though inconclusive, the findings raise questions about whether treatments or interventions might need to be postponed in certain patients, whether cancer patients and survivors need stronger personal protection, and how to deal with potential delays in cancer clinical trials, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“As the evidence continues to rise, we must strive to answer the unanswered clinical questions,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Desai and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest related to the study.
SOURCE: Desai A et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00097.
An early report pegged the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients at 1%, but authors of a recent meta-analysis found an overall prevalence of 2% and up to 3% depending on the subset of data they reviewed.
However, those findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the studies published to date, according to the authors of the meta-analysis, led by Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
Nevertheless, the results do confirm that cancer patients and survivors are an important at-risk population for COVID-19, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“We hope that additional data from China and Italy will provide information on the characteristics of patients with cancer at risk, types of cancer that confer higher risk, and systemic regimens that may increase COVID-19 infection complications,” the authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology.
More than 15 million individuals with cancer and many more cancer survivors are at increased risk of COVID-19 because of compromised immune systems, according to the authors.
Exactly how many individuals with cancer are among the COVID-19 cases remains unclear, though a previous report suggested the prevalence of cancer was 1% (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.65%) among COVID-19 patients in China (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7). This “seems to be higher” than the 0.29% prevalence of cancer in the overall Chinese population, the investigators noted at the time.
That study revealed 18 cancer patients among 1,590 COVID-19 cases, though it was “hypothesis generating,” according to Dr. Desai and colleagues, who rolled that data into their meta-analysis of 11 reports including 3,661 COVID-19 cases.
Overall, Dr. Desai and colleagues found the pooled prevalence of cancer was 2.0% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.0%) in that population. In a subgroup analysis of five studies with sample sizes of less than 100 COVID-19 patients, the researchers found a “slightly higher” prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.0%).
However, even that data wasn’t robust enough for Dr. Desai and colleagues to make any pronouncements on cancer prevalence. “Overall, current evidence on the association between cancer and COVID-19 remains inconclusive,” they wrote.
Though inconclusive, the findings raise questions about whether treatments or interventions might need to be postponed in certain patients, whether cancer patients and survivors need stronger personal protection, and how to deal with potential delays in cancer clinical trials, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“As the evidence continues to rise, we must strive to answer the unanswered clinical questions,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Desai and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest related to the study.
SOURCE: Desai A et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00097.
An early report pegged the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients at 1%, but authors of a recent meta-analysis found an overall prevalence of 2% and up to 3% depending on the subset of data they reviewed.
However, those findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the studies published to date, according to the authors of the meta-analysis, led by Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
Nevertheless, the results do confirm that cancer patients and survivors are an important at-risk population for COVID-19, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“We hope that additional data from China and Italy will provide information on the characteristics of patients with cancer at risk, types of cancer that confer higher risk, and systemic regimens that may increase COVID-19 infection complications,” the authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology.
More than 15 million individuals with cancer and many more cancer survivors are at increased risk of COVID-19 because of compromised immune systems, according to the authors.
Exactly how many individuals with cancer are among the COVID-19 cases remains unclear, though a previous report suggested the prevalence of cancer was 1% (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.65%) among COVID-19 patients in China (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7). This “seems to be higher” than the 0.29% prevalence of cancer in the overall Chinese population, the investigators noted at the time.
That study revealed 18 cancer patients among 1,590 COVID-19 cases, though it was “hypothesis generating,” according to Dr. Desai and colleagues, who rolled that data into their meta-analysis of 11 reports including 3,661 COVID-19 cases.
Overall, Dr. Desai and colleagues found the pooled prevalence of cancer was 2.0% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.0%) in that population. In a subgroup analysis of five studies with sample sizes of less than 100 COVID-19 patients, the researchers found a “slightly higher” prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.0%).
However, even that data wasn’t robust enough for Dr. Desai and colleagues to make any pronouncements on cancer prevalence. “Overall, current evidence on the association between cancer and COVID-19 remains inconclusive,” they wrote.
Though inconclusive, the findings raise questions about whether treatments or interventions might need to be postponed in certain patients, whether cancer patients and survivors need stronger personal protection, and how to deal with potential delays in cancer clinical trials, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“As the evidence continues to rise, we must strive to answer the unanswered clinical questions,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Desai and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest related to the study.
SOURCE: Desai A et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00097.
FROM JCO GLOBAL ONCOLOGY
Home-based chemo skyrockets at one U.S. center
Major organization opposes concept
In the fall of 2019, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia started a pilot program of home-based chemotherapy for two treatment regimens (one via infusion and one via injection). Six months later, the Cancer Care at Home program had treated 40 patients.
The uptake within the university’s large regional health system was acceptable but not rapid, admitted Amy Laughlin, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow involved with the program.
Then COVID-19 arrived, along with related travel restrictions.
Suddenly, in a 5-week period (March to April 7), 175 patients had been treated – a 300% increase from the first half year. Program staff jumped from 12 to 80 employees. The list of chemotherapies delivered went from two to seven, with more coming.
“We’re not the pilot anymore – we’re the standard of care,” Laughlin told Medscape Medical News.
“The impact [on patients] is amazing,” she said. “As long as you are selecting the right patients and right therapy, it is feasible and even preferable for a lot of patients.”
For example, patients with hormone-positive breast cancer who receive leuprolide (to shut down the ovaries and suppress estrogen production) ordinarily would have to visit a Penn facility for an injection every month, potentially for years. Now, a nurse can meet patients at home (or before the COVID-19 pandemic, even at their place of work) and administer the injection, saving the patient travel time and associated costs.
This home-based chemotherapy service does not appear to be offered elsewhere in the United States, and a major oncology organization – the Community Oncology Alliance – is opposed to the practice because of patient safety concerns.
The service is not offered at a sample of cancer centers queried by Medscape Medical News, including the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Moores Cancer Center, the University of California, San Diego.
Opposition because of safety concerns
On April 9, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) issued a statement saying it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”
The COA warned that “many of the side effects caused by cancer treatment can have a rapid, unpredictable onset that places patients in incredible jeopardy and can even be life-threatening.”
In contrast, in a recent communication related to COVID-19, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network tacitly endorsed the concept, stating that a number of chemotherapies may potentially be administered at home, but it did not include guidelines for doing so.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that chemotherapy at home is “an issue [we] are monitoring closely,” according to a spokesperson.
What’s involved
Criteria for home-based chemotherapy at Penn include use of anticancer therapies that a patient has previously tolerated and low toxicity (that can be readily managed in the home setting). In addition, patients must be capable of following a med chart.
The chemotherapy is reconstituted at a Penn facility in a Philadelphia suburb. A courier then delivers the drug to the patient’s home, where it is administered by an oncology-trained nurse. Drugs must be stable for at least a few hours to qualify for the program.
The Penn program started with two regimens: EPOCH (etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone) for lymphoma, and leuprolide acetate injections for either breast or prostate cancer.
The two treatments are polar opposites in terms of complexity, common usage, and time required, which was intended, said Laughlin.
Time to deliver the chemo varies from a matter of minutes with leuprolide to more than 2 hours for rituximab, a lymphoma drug that may be added to EPOCH.
The current list of at-home chemo agents in the Penn program also includes bortezomib, lanreotide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab. Soon to come are rituximab and pembrolizumab for lung cancer and head and neck cancer.
Already practiced in some European countries
Home-based chemotherapy dates from at least the 1980s in the medical literature and is practiced in some European countries.
A 2018 randomized study of adjuvant treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for stage II/III colon cancer in Denmark, where home-based care has been practiced for the past 2 years and is growing in use, concluded that “it might be a valuable alternative to treatment at an outpatient clinic.”
However, in the study, there was no difference in quality of life between the home and outpatient settings, which is somewhat surprising, inasmuch as a major appeal to receiving chemotherapy at home is that it is less disruptive compared to receiving it in a hospital or clinic, which requires travel.
Also, chemo at home “may be resource intensive” and have a “lower throughput of patients due to transportation time,” cautioned the Danish investigators, who were from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital.
A 2015 review called home chemo “a safe and patient‐centered alternative to hospital‐ and outpatient‐based service.” Jenna Evans, PhD, McMaster University, Toronto, Canada, and lead author of that review, says there are two major barriers to infusion chemotherapy in homes.
One is inadequate resources in the community, such as oncology-trained nurses to deliver treatment, and the other is perceptions of safety and quality, including among healthcare providers.
COVID-19 might prompt more chemo at home, said Evans, a health policy expert, in an email to Medscape Medical News. “It is not unusual for change of this type and scale to require a seismic event to become more mainstream,” she argued.
Reimbursement for home-based chemo is usually the same as for chemo in a free-standing infusion suite, says Cassandra Redmond, PharmD, MBA, director of pharmacy, Penn Home Infusion Therapy.
Private insurers and Medicare cover a subset of infused medications at home, but coverage is limited. “The opportunity now is to expand these initiatives ... to include other cancer therapies,” she said about coverage.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Major organization opposes concept
Major organization opposes concept
In the fall of 2019, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia started a pilot program of home-based chemotherapy for two treatment regimens (one via infusion and one via injection). Six months later, the Cancer Care at Home program had treated 40 patients.
The uptake within the university’s large regional health system was acceptable but not rapid, admitted Amy Laughlin, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow involved with the program.
Then COVID-19 arrived, along with related travel restrictions.
Suddenly, in a 5-week period (March to April 7), 175 patients had been treated – a 300% increase from the first half year. Program staff jumped from 12 to 80 employees. The list of chemotherapies delivered went from two to seven, with more coming.
“We’re not the pilot anymore – we’re the standard of care,” Laughlin told Medscape Medical News.
“The impact [on patients] is amazing,” she said. “As long as you are selecting the right patients and right therapy, it is feasible and even preferable for a lot of patients.”
For example, patients with hormone-positive breast cancer who receive leuprolide (to shut down the ovaries and suppress estrogen production) ordinarily would have to visit a Penn facility for an injection every month, potentially for years. Now, a nurse can meet patients at home (or before the COVID-19 pandemic, even at their place of work) and administer the injection, saving the patient travel time and associated costs.
This home-based chemotherapy service does not appear to be offered elsewhere in the United States, and a major oncology organization – the Community Oncology Alliance – is opposed to the practice because of patient safety concerns.
The service is not offered at a sample of cancer centers queried by Medscape Medical News, including the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Moores Cancer Center, the University of California, San Diego.
Opposition because of safety concerns
On April 9, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) issued a statement saying it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”
The COA warned that “many of the side effects caused by cancer treatment can have a rapid, unpredictable onset that places patients in incredible jeopardy and can even be life-threatening.”
In contrast, in a recent communication related to COVID-19, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network tacitly endorsed the concept, stating that a number of chemotherapies may potentially be administered at home, but it did not include guidelines for doing so.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that chemotherapy at home is “an issue [we] are monitoring closely,” according to a spokesperson.
What’s involved
Criteria for home-based chemotherapy at Penn include use of anticancer therapies that a patient has previously tolerated and low toxicity (that can be readily managed in the home setting). In addition, patients must be capable of following a med chart.
The chemotherapy is reconstituted at a Penn facility in a Philadelphia suburb. A courier then delivers the drug to the patient’s home, where it is administered by an oncology-trained nurse. Drugs must be stable for at least a few hours to qualify for the program.
The Penn program started with two regimens: EPOCH (etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone) for lymphoma, and leuprolide acetate injections for either breast or prostate cancer.
The two treatments are polar opposites in terms of complexity, common usage, and time required, which was intended, said Laughlin.
Time to deliver the chemo varies from a matter of minutes with leuprolide to more than 2 hours for rituximab, a lymphoma drug that may be added to EPOCH.
The current list of at-home chemo agents in the Penn program also includes bortezomib, lanreotide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab. Soon to come are rituximab and pembrolizumab for lung cancer and head and neck cancer.
Already practiced in some European countries
Home-based chemotherapy dates from at least the 1980s in the medical literature and is practiced in some European countries.
A 2018 randomized study of adjuvant treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for stage II/III colon cancer in Denmark, where home-based care has been practiced for the past 2 years and is growing in use, concluded that “it might be a valuable alternative to treatment at an outpatient clinic.”
However, in the study, there was no difference in quality of life between the home and outpatient settings, which is somewhat surprising, inasmuch as a major appeal to receiving chemotherapy at home is that it is less disruptive compared to receiving it in a hospital or clinic, which requires travel.
Also, chemo at home “may be resource intensive” and have a “lower throughput of patients due to transportation time,” cautioned the Danish investigators, who were from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital.
A 2015 review called home chemo “a safe and patient‐centered alternative to hospital‐ and outpatient‐based service.” Jenna Evans, PhD, McMaster University, Toronto, Canada, and lead author of that review, says there are two major barriers to infusion chemotherapy in homes.
One is inadequate resources in the community, such as oncology-trained nurses to deliver treatment, and the other is perceptions of safety and quality, including among healthcare providers.
COVID-19 might prompt more chemo at home, said Evans, a health policy expert, in an email to Medscape Medical News. “It is not unusual for change of this type and scale to require a seismic event to become more mainstream,” she argued.
Reimbursement for home-based chemo is usually the same as for chemo in a free-standing infusion suite, says Cassandra Redmond, PharmD, MBA, director of pharmacy, Penn Home Infusion Therapy.
Private insurers and Medicare cover a subset of infused medications at home, but coverage is limited. “The opportunity now is to expand these initiatives ... to include other cancer therapies,” she said about coverage.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the fall of 2019, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia started a pilot program of home-based chemotherapy for two treatment regimens (one via infusion and one via injection). Six months later, the Cancer Care at Home program had treated 40 patients.
The uptake within the university’s large regional health system was acceptable but not rapid, admitted Amy Laughlin, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow involved with the program.
Then COVID-19 arrived, along with related travel restrictions.
Suddenly, in a 5-week period (March to April 7), 175 patients had been treated – a 300% increase from the first half year. Program staff jumped from 12 to 80 employees. The list of chemotherapies delivered went from two to seven, with more coming.
“We’re not the pilot anymore – we’re the standard of care,” Laughlin told Medscape Medical News.
“The impact [on patients] is amazing,” she said. “As long as you are selecting the right patients and right therapy, it is feasible and even preferable for a lot of patients.”
For example, patients with hormone-positive breast cancer who receive leuprolide (to shut down the ovaries and suppress estrogen production) ordinarily would have to visit a Penn facility for an injection every month, potentially for years. Now, a nurse can meet patients at home (or before the COVID-19 pandemic, even at their place of work) and administer the injection, saving the patient travel time and associated costs.
This home-based chemotherapy service does not appear to be offered elsewhere in the United States, and a major oncology organization – the Community Oncology Alliance – is opposed to the practice because of patient safety concerns.
The service is not offered at a sample of cancer centers queried by Medscape Medical News, including the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Moores Cancer Center, the University of California, San Diego.
Opposition because of safety concerns
On April 9, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) issued a statement saying it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”
The COA warned that “many of the side effects caused by cancer treatment can have a rapid, unpredictable onset that places patients in incredible jeopardy and can even be life-threatening.”
In contrast, in a recent communication related to COVID-19, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network tacitly endorsed the concept, stating that a number of chemotherapies may potentially be administered at home, but it did not include guidelines for doing so.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that chemotherapy at home is “an issue [we] are monitoring closely,” according to a spokesperson.
What’s involved
Criteria for home-based chemotherapy at Penn include use of anticancer therapies that a patient has previously tolerated and low toxicity (that can be readily managed in the home setting). In addition, patients must be capable of following a med chart.
The chemotherapy is reconstituted at a Penn facility in a Philadelphia suburb. A courier then delivers the drug to the patient’s home, where it is administered by an oncology-trained nurse. Drugs must be stable for at least a few hours to qualify for the program.
The Penn program started with two regimens: EPOCH (etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone) for lymphoma, and leuprolide acetate injections for either breast or prostate cancer.
The two treatments are polar opposites in terms of complexity, common usage, and time required, which was intended, said Laughlin.
Time to deliver the chemo varies from a matter of minutes with leuprolide to more than 2 hours for rituximab, a lymphoma drug that may be added to EPOCH.
The current list of at-home chemo agents in the Penn program also includes bortezomib, lanreotide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab. Soon to come are rituximab and pembrolizumab for lung cancer and head and neck cancer.
Already practiced in some European countries
Home-based chemotherapy dates from at least the 1980s in the medical literature and is practiced in some European countries.
A 2018 randomized study of adjuvant treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for stage II/III colon cancer in Denmark, where home-based care has been practiced for the past 2 years and is growing in use, concluded that “it might be a valuable alternative to treatment at an outpatient clinic.”
However, in the study, there was no difference in quality of life between the home and outpatient settings, which is somewhat surprising, inasmuch as a major appeal to receiving chemotherapy at home is that it is less disruptive compared to receiving it in a hospital or clinic, which requires travel.
Also, chemo at home “may be resource intensive” and have a “lower throughput of patients due to transportation time,” cautioned the Danish investigators, who were from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital.
A 2015 review called home chemo “a safe and patient‐centered alternative to hospital‐ and outpatient‐based service.” Jenna Evans, PhD, McMaster University, Toronto, Canada, and lead author of that review, says there are two major barriers to infusion chemotherapy in homes.
One is inadequate resources in the community, such as oncology-trained nurses to deliver treatment, and the other is perceptions of safety and quality, including among healthcare providers.
COVID-19 might prompt more chemo at home, said Evans, a health policy expert, in an email to Medscape Medical News. “It is not unusual for change of this type and scale to require a seismic event to become more mainstream,” she argued.
Reimbursement for home-based chemo is usually the same as for chemo in a free-standing infusion suite, says Cassandra Redmond, PharmD, MBA, director of pharmacy, Penn Home Infusion Therapy.
Private insurers and Medicare cover a subset of infused medications at home, but coverage is limited. “The opportunity now is to expand these initiatives ... to include other cancer therapies,” she said about coverage.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Breastfeeding reduces invasive ovarian cancer risk
Multiple studies have reported a link between breastfeeding and a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, but other studies have found no such link, and the evidence that the protective effects differ by histologic types has been inconclusive.
“This large study with extensive information on breastfeeding provides epidemiological evidence that breastfeeding, a potentially modifiable factor, may confer significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk, including high-grade serous, the deadliest subtype,” Ana Babic, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Oncology.
Dr. Babic led the study of a pooled analysis of women from 13 case-control studies participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. The study evaluated 9,973 women who had ovarian cancer and 13,843 controls, with a mean age of 57 and 56 years, respectively. The data were collected over 20 years through December 2009. Dr. Babic and colleagues claimed that this is the largest study of breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risk to date.
Besides calculating a lower risk of invasive cancer, the analysis also determined that any breastfeeding was associated with a 28% lower risk of borderline cancers, compared with women who never breastfed. “Among invasive tumors, the association was statistically significant for high-grade serous, endometrioid and clear-cell tumors,” Dr. Babic and colleagues wrote, with 25%, 27% and 22% reduced risk, respectively. The researchers also noted a similar, although not statistically significant, reduced risk for low-grade serous tumors, but no such association for mucinous tumors. For borderline tumors, breastfeeding correlated with a 32% lower risk for mucinous tumors and 23% reduction in risk for serous tumors.
The analysis included five studies with data on exclusive breastfeeding. Women who breastfed exclusively for at least 3 months had a 19% reduced risk of ovarian cancer, compared with women who never breastfed, while women who breastfed albeit not exclusively for 3 months had a 30% reduced risk. The analysis also found an association between longer duration of breastfeeding and reduced risk of invasive ovarian cancer: less than 3 months duration per child was associated with an 18% lower risk, while more than 12 months was associated with a 34% lower risk (P < .001). Other factors that seemed to mitigate risk were older age when breastfeeding and breastfeeding within the previous 10 years.
One of the strengths of the studies is that it separated low-grade and the more common and deadly high-grade serous tumors. While the analysis found similar trends with endometrioid ovarian cancers, it didn’t reach a conclusion about other invasive histotypes because there were fewer cases to evaluate. Because the study population was predominantly white, the researchers acknowledged they could not sufficiently evaluate patterns among blacks, Asian, and other ethnic groups. “The association between breastfeeding and ovarian cancer needs to be investigated in large populations of other races and ethnicities,” Dr. Babic and colleagues added.
Nonetheless, they noted that their results support the World Health Organization recommendations of at least 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding and continued breastfeeding with complementary foods for 2 years or more, even though breastfeeding for less than 3 months is associated with a significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk.
The study is significant because of its “thoughtful approach to addressing potential confounders (parity, age, etc.),” said David Barrington, MD, gynecologic oncology fellow at Ohio State University James Cancer Center in Columbus.
“For general obstetricians and gynecologists, this study provides an additional reason to advocate for breastfeeding,” Dr. Barrington added. “This data should be included in a thorough discussion of the multitudes of benefits breastfeeding provides to both the infant and the mother.”
He added that future studies should evaluate breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risks in a more ethnically diverse population. “Understanding the potential impact of modifiable risk factors for ovarian cancer is paramount to overcoming racial disparities in outcomes,” Dr. Barrington said.
The study was supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Dr. Babic reported grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Some coauthors reported grants from the NIH, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, the Danish Cancer Society, or the Mermaid I Project. Some coauthors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Barrington has no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Babic A et al. JAMA Oncology. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0421.
Multiple studies have reported a link between breastfeeding and a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, but other studies have found no such link, and the evidence that the protective effects differ by histologic types has been inconclusive.
“This large study with extensive information on breastfeeding provides epidemiological evidence that breastfeeding, a potentially modifiable factor, may confer significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk, including high-grade serous, the deadliest subtype,” Ana Babic, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Oncology.
Dr. Babic led the study of a pooled analysis of women from 13 case-control studies participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. The study evaluated 9,973 women who had ovarian cancer and 13,843 controls, with a mean age of 57 and 56 years, respectively. The data were collected over 20 years through December 2009. Dr. Babic and colleagues claimed that this is the largest study of breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risk to date.
Besides calculating a lower risk of invasive cancer, the analysis also determined that any breastfeeding was associated with a 28% lower risk of borderline cancers, compared with women who never breastfed. “Among invasive tumors, the association was statistically significant for high-grade serous, endometrioid and clear-cell tumors,” Dr. Babic and colleagues wrote, with 25%, 27% and 22% reduced risk, respectively. The researchers also noted a similar, although not statistically significant, reduced risk for low-grade serous tumors, but no such association for mucinous tumors. For borderline tumors, breastfeeding correlated with a 32% lower risk for mucinous tumors and 23% reduction in risk for serous tumors.
The analysis included five studies with data on exclusive breastfeeding. Women who breastfed exclusively for at least 3 months had a 19% reduced risk of ovarian cancer, compared with women who never breastfed, while women who breastfed albeit not exclusively for 3 months had a 30% reduced risk. The analysis also found an association between longer duration of breastfeeding and reduced risk of invasive ovarian cancer: less than 3 months duration per child was associated with an 18% lower risk, while more than 12 months was associated with a 34% lower risk (P < .001). Other factors that seemed to mitigate risk were older age when breastfeeding and breastfeeding within the previous 10 years.
One of the strengths of the studies is that it separated low-grade and the more common and deadly high-grade serous tumors. While the analysis found similar trends with endometrioid ovarian cancers, it didn’t reach a conclusion about other invasive histotypes because there were fewer cases to evaluate. Because the study population was predominantly white, the researchers acknowledged they could not sufficiently evaluate patterns among blacks, Asian, and other ethnic groups. “The association between breastfeeding and ovarian cancer needs to be investigated in large populations of other races and ethnicities,” Dr. Babic and colleagues added.
Nonetheless, they noted that their results support the World Health Organization recommendations of at least 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding and continued breastfeeding with complementary foods for 2 years or more, even though breastfeeding for less than 3 months is associated with a significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk.
The study is significant because of its “thoughtful approach to addressing potential confounders (parity, age, etc.),” said David Barrington, MD, gynecologic oncology fellow at Ohio State University James Cancer Center in Columbus.
“For general obstetricians and gynecologists, this study provides an additional reason to advocate for breastfeeding,” Dr. Barrington added. “This data should be included in a thorough discussion of the multitudes of benefits breastfeeding provides to both the infant and the mother.”
He added that future studies should evaluate breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risks in a more ethnically diverse population. “Understanding the potential impact of modifiable risk factors for ovarian cancer is paramount to overcoming racial disparities in outcomes,” Dr. Barrington said.
The study was supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Dr. Babic reported grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Some coauthors reported grants from the NIH, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, the Danish Cancer Society, or the Mermaid I Project. Some coauthors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Barrington has no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Babic A et al. JAMA Oncology. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0421.
Multiple studies have reported a link between breastfeeding and a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, but other studies have found no such link, and the evidence that the protective effects differ by histologic types has been inconclusive.
“This large study with extensive information on breastfeeding provides epidemiological evidence that breastfeeding, a potentially modifiable factor, may confer significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk, including high-grade serous, the deadliest subtype,” Ana Babic, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Oncology.
Dr. Babic led the study of a pooled analysis of women from 13 case-control studies participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. The study evaluated 9,973 women who had ovarian cancer and 13,843 controls, with a mean age of 57 and 56 years, respectively. The data were collected over 20 years through December 2009. Dr. Babic and colleagues claimed that this is the largest study of breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risk to date.
Besides calculating a lower risk of invasive cancer, the analysis also determined that any breastfeeding was associated with a 28% lower risk of borderline cancers, compared with women who never breastfed. “Among invasive tumors, the association was statistically significant for high-grade serous, endometrioid and clear-cell tumors,” Dr. Babic and colleagues wrote, with 25%, 27% and 22% reduced risk, respectively. The researchers also noted a similar, although not statistically significant, reduced risk for low-grade serous tumors, but no such association for mucinous tumors. For borderline tumors, breastfeeding correlated with a 32% lower risk for mucinous tumors and 23% reduction in risk for serous tumors.
The analysis included five studies with data on exclusive breastfeeding. Women who breastfed exclusively for at least 3 months had a 19% reduced risk of ovarian cancer, compared with women who never breastfed, while women who breastfed albeit not exclusively for 3 months had a 30% reduced risk. The analysis also found an association between longer duration of breastfeeding and reduced risk of invasive ovarian cancer: less than 3 months duration per child was associated with an 18% lower risk, while more than 12 months was associated with a 34% lower risk (P < .001). Other factors that seemed to mitigate risk were older age when breastfeeding and breastfeeding within the previous 10 years.
One of the strengths of the studies is that it separated low-grade and the more common and deadly high-grade serous tumors. While the analysis found similar trends with endometrioid ovarian cancers, it didn’t reach a conclusion about other invasive histotypes because there were fewer cases to evaluate. Because the study population was predominantly white, the researchers acknowledged they could not sufficiently evaluate patterns among blacks, Asian, and other ethnic groups. “The association between breastfeeding and ovarian cancer needs to be investigated in large populations of other races and ethnicities,” Dr. Babic and colleagues added.
Nonetheless, they noted that their results support the World Health Organization recommendations of at least 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding and continued breastfeeding with complementary foods for 2 years or more, even though breastfeeding for less than 3 months is associated with a significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk.
The study is significant because of its “thoughtful approach to addressing potential confounders (parity, age, etc.),” said David Barrington, MD, gynecologic oncology fellow at Ohio State University James Cancer Center in Columbus.
“For general obstetricians and gynecologists, this study provides an additional reason to advocate for breastfeeding,” Dr. Barrington added. “This data should be included in a thorough discussion of the multitudes of benefits breastfeeding provides to both the infant and the mother.”
He added that future studies should evaluate breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risks in a more ethnically diverse population. “Understanding the potential impact of modifiable risk factors for ovarian cancer is paramount to overcoming racial disparities in outcomes,” Dr. Barrington said.
The study was supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Dr. Babic reported grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Some coauthors reported grants from the NIH, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, the Danish Cancer Society, or the Mermaid I Project. Some coauthors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Barrington has no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Babic A et al. JAMA Oncology. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0421.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Combo elicits responses in advanced cervical cancer
regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 study.
Apatinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, and camrelizumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, produced an objective response rate of 60% in evaluable patients.
Chunyan Lan, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and colleagues reported these results in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following data differ somewhat from the abstract.
Dr. Lan and colleagues reported results in 45 patients who had progressed after at least one line of systemic chemotherapy for metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer, and had measurable disease. Patients had a median age of 51 years and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. They were enrolled at four centers in China between Jan. 21 and Aug. 1, 2019.
Treatment consisted of oral apatinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily and intravenous camrelizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.
As of Jan. 22, 2020, 25 of 42 efficacy-evaluable patients had achieved a response. Two patients had a complete response, 23 had a partial response, and 12 had stable disease.
“We saw responses in patients regardless of PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Lan said. “In our study, 34% were PD-L1 negative, and the response rate is 65% in PD-L1-positive and 50% in PD-L1-negative [patients].”
The median duration of response was not reached, she added.
The median follow-up was 9.2 months, with the last patient enrolled having 6 months of follow-up. At the data cutoff, 19 patients had disease progression, and 8 had died of their disease.
The median overall survival also was not reached, Dr. Lan said, but overall survival at 9 months was 80%. The median progression-free survival was 7.6 months, and the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 58%.
Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 68.9% of patients; adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients included hypertension (22.2%), fatigue (15.6%), anemia (13.3%), and thrombocytopenia (6.7%).
“Nineteen patients were still on treatment at the data cutoff date, and 26 patients discontinued the study,” Dr. Lan said. “The most common reason to discontinue was disease progression, and three patients discontinued the study due to adverse events.”
“These preliminary results are very encouraging,” Dr. Lan said. “As we know, pembrolizumab is approved as the second-line therapy in recurrent cervical cancer [in] PD-L1-positive patients, and the objective response rate with pembrolizumab monotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer is only 17%, as reported in KEYNOTE-028 [J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 20;35(36):4035-41].”
Furthermore, apatinib monotherapy has been studied with only modest results.
“But in our study, this combination is really effective in recurrent cervical cancer, and we see a very durable response,” she said, again emphasizing that those responses occurred regardless of PD-L1 expression. “So this is important. ... We think our findings expand the opportunity of patients with recurrent cervical cancer to receive immune therapy.”
Study participants will be followed for 2 years, Dr. Lan noted.
She reported having no disclosures. The study is sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University.
[email protected]
SOURCE: Lan C et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 55.
regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 study.
Apatinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, and camrelizumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, produced an objective response rate of 60% in evaluable patients.
Chunyan Lan, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and colleagues reported these results in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following data differ somewhat from the abstract.
Dr. Lan and colleagues reported results in 45 patients who had progressed after at least one line of systemic chemotherapy for metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer, and had measurable disease. Patients had a median age of 51 years and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. They were enrolled at four centers in China between Jan. 21 and Aug. 1, 2019.
Treatment consisted of oral apatinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily and intravenous camrelizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.
As of Jan. 22, 2020, 25 of 42 efficacy-evaluable patients had achieved a response. Two patients had a complete response, 23 had a partial response, and 12 had stable disease.
“We saw responses in patients regardless of PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Lan said. “In our study, 34% were PD-L1 negative, and the response rate is 65% in PD-L1-positive and 50% in PD-L1-negative [patients].”
The median duration of response was not reached, she added.
The median follow-up was 9.2 months, with the last patient enrolled having 6 months of follow-up. At the data cutoff, 19 patients had disease progression, and 8 had died of their disease.
The median overall survival also was not reached, Dr. Lan said, but overall survival at 9 months was 80%. The median progression-free survival was 7.6 months, and the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 58%.
Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 68.9% of patients; adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients included hypertension (22.2%), fatigue (15.6%), anemia (13.3%), and thrombocytopenia (6.7%).
“Nineteen patients were still on treatment at the data cutoff date, and 26 patients discontinued the study,” Dr. Lan said. “The most common reason to discontinue was disease progression, and three patients discontinued the study due to adverse events.”
“These preliminary results are very encouraging,” Dr. Lan said. “As we know, pembrolizumab is approved as the second-line therapy in recurrent cervical cancer [in] PD-L1-positive patients, and the objective response rate with pembrolizumab monotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer is only 17%, as reported in KEYNOTE-028 [J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 20;35(36):4035-41].”
Furthermore, apatinib monotherapy has been studied with only modest results.
“But in our study, this combination is really effective in recurrent cervical cancer, and we see a very durable response,” she said, again emphasizing that those responses occurred regardless of PD-L1 expression. “So this is important. ... We think our findings expand the opportunity of patients with recurrent cervical cancer to receive immune therapy.”
Study participants will be followed for 2 years, Dr. Lan noted.
She reported having no disclosures. The study is sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University.
[email protected]
SOURCE: Lan C et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 55.
regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 study.
Apatinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, and camrelizumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, produced an objective response rate of 60% in evaluable patients.
Chunyan Lan, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and colleagues reported these results in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following data differ somewhat from the abstract.
Dr. Lan and colleagues reported results in 45 patients who had progressed after at least one line of systemic chemotherapy for metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer, and had measurable disease. Patients had a median age of 51 years and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. They were enrolled at four centers in China between Jan. 21 and Aug. 1, 2019.
Treatment consisted of oral apatinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily and intravenous camrelizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.
As of Jan. 22, 2020, 25 of 42 efficacy-evaluable patients had achieved a response. Two patients had a complete response, 23 had a partial response, and 12 had stable disease.
“We saw responses in patients regardless of PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Lan said. “In our study, 34% were PD-L1 negative, and the response rate is 65% in PD-L1-positive and 50% in PD-L1-negative [patients].”
The median duration of response was not reached, she added.
The median follow-up was 9.2 months, with the last patient enrolled having 6 months of follow-up. At the data cutoff, 19 patients had disease progression, and 8 had died of their disease.
The median overall survival also was not reached, Dr. Lan said, but overall survival at 9 months was 80%. The median progression-free survival was 7.6 months, and the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 58%.
Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 68.9% of patients; adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients included hypertension (22.2%), fatigue (15.6%), anemia (13.3%), and thrombocytopenia (6.7%).
“Nineteen patients were still on treatment at the data cutoff date, and 26 patients discontinued the study,” Dr. Lan said. “The most common reason to discontinue was disease progression, and three patients discontinued the study due to adverse events.”
“These preliminary results are very encouraging,” Dr. Lan said. “As we know, pembrolizumab is approved as the second-line therapy in recurrent cervical cancer [in] PD-L1-positive patients, and the objective response rate with pembrolizumab monotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer is only 17%, as reported in KEYNOTE-028 [J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 20;35(36):4035-41].”
Furthermore, apatinib monotherapy has been studied with only modest results.
“But in our study, this combination is really effective in recurrent cervical cancer, and we see a very durable response,” she said, again emphasizing that those responses occurred regardless of PD-L1 expression. “So this is important. ... We think our findings expand the opportunity of patients with recurrent cervical cancer to receive immune therapy.”
Study participants will be followed for 2 years, Dr. Lan noted.
She reported having no disclosures. The study is sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University.
[email protected]
SOURCE: Lan C et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 55.
FROM SGO 2020