Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

New research supports the use of liquid biopsy as an adjunct biomarker for the diagnosis and surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oropharyngeal cancer.

In a retrospective observational cohort study, a commercially available blood test used to evaluate tumor tissue–modified viral-HPV DNA demonstrated 100% specificity for both diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer and surveillance for recurrence. Sensitivity was 91.5% for correctly identifying patients who have the disease and 88.4% for surveillance.

“A positive result appeared to confirm the presence of disease, [but] approximately 1 in 10 negative results in patients with pathologically confirmed HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma were falsely negative,” lead investigator Rocco Ferrandino, MD, with Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Therefore, further workup should still be pursued when clinical suspicion for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer is high,” Dr. Ferrandino said.

The study was published online, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, to coincide with presentation at the annual meeting of the American Head and Neck Society in Montreal.
 

‘Remarkable promise’

The diagnosis of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer currently relies on a tissue-based biopsy of the primary site or a regional lymph node; however, there has been growing interest in the potential of liquid biopsy for diagnosis and surveillance.

The commercially available assay that was evaluated in the study uses a distinct method to identify and quantify a tumor-associated or tumor-modified pattern of DNA fragments that significantly increases the specificity for identifying an HPV-associated malignant tumor. However, evaluation of the assay has been limited to small cohort studies and clinical trials.

In the current study, Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues evaluated the performance of the assay used during routine clinical practice at their high-volume institution over a period of nearly 3 years.

The study included 163 patients in the diagnostic cohort and 290 in the surveillance cohort. In the diagnostic cohort, 152 had HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer, and 11 had HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer. The sensitivity of the assay in pretreatment diagnosis was 91.5% (139 of 152 tests), and the specificity was 100% (11 of 11 tests).

In the surveillance cohort of 290 patients, 591 tests were evaluated. A total of 23 patients developed pathologically confirmed recurrences over a median follow-up of 40.5 months. The assay demonstrated sensitivity of 88.4% (38 of 43 tests) and specificity of 100% (548 of 548 tests) in detecting recurrences.

The median lead time from positive test to pathologic confirmation was 47 days.

“The lead time provided by positive assay results may allow a window of opportunity for salvage treatment or for the application of adjuvant systemic therapy,” Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues explain.

“While these results are exciting and may support adjunctive use of circulating tumor DNA testing for diagnosis and surveillance, we really need more prospective and multicenter studies to validate these findings,” Dr. Ferrandino said in an interview.

In an accompanying commentary, Miriam Lango, MD, department of head and neck surgery, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she agrees that a prospective clinical validation study is needed.

“Nevertheless, the use of this technology shows remarkable promise to transform the ability to identify and follow patients with HPV-related disease. Testing is likely to be increasingly used in routine clinical care, as it is commercially available,” Dr. Lango writes.

Still, she noted, “It is incumbent on us to establish evidence for strong and detailed surveillance guidelines to share among the cancer community.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Ferrandino and Dr. Lango have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the use of liquid biopsy as an adjunct biomarker for the diagnosis and surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oropharyngeal cancer.

In a retrospective observational cohort study, a commercially available blood test used to evaluate tumor tissue–modified viral-HPV DNA demonstrated 100% specificity for both diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer and surveillance for recurrence. Sensitivity was 91.5% for correctly identifying patients who have the disease and 88.4% for surveillance.

“A positive result appeared to confirm the presence of disease, [but] approximately 1 in 10 negative results in patients with pathologically confirmed HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma were falsely negative,” lead investigator Rocco Ferrandino, MD, with Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Therefore, further workup should still be pursued when clinical suspicion for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer is high,” Dr. Ferrandino said.

The study was published online, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, to coincide with presentation at the annual meeting of the American Head and Neck Society in Montreal.
 

‘Remarkable promise’

The diagnosis of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer currently relies on a tissue-based biopsy of the primary site or a regional lymph node; however, there has been growing interest in the potential of liquid biopsy for diagnosis and surveillance.

The commercially available assay that was evaluated in the study uses a distinct method to identify and quantify a tumor-associated or tumor-modified pattern of DNA fragments that significantly increases the specificity for identifying an HPV-associated malignant tumor. However, evaluation of the assay has been limited to small cohort studies and clinical trials.

In the current study, Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues evaluated the performance of the assay used during routine clinical practice at their high-volume institution over a period of nearly 3 years.

The study included 163 patients in the diagnostic cohort and 290 in the surveillance cohort. In the diagnostic cohort, 152 had HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer, and 11 had HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer. The sensitivity of the assay in pretreatment diagnosis was 91.5% (139 of 152 tests), and the specificity was 100% (11 of 11 tests).

In the surveillance cohort of 290 patients, 591 tests were evaluated. A total of 23 patients developed pathologically confirmed recurrences over a median follow-up of 40.5 months. The assay demonstrated sensitivity of 88.4% (38 of 43 tests) and specificity of 100% (548 of 548 tests) in detecting recurrences.

The median lead time from positive test to pathologic confirmation was 47 days.

“The lead time provided by positive assay results may allow a window of opportunity for salvage treatment or for the application of adjuvant systemic therapy,” Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues explain.

“While these results are exciting and may support adjunctive use of circulating tumor DNA testing for diagnosis and surveillance, we really need more prospective and multicenter studies to validate these findings,” Dr. Ferrandino said in an interview.

In an accompanying commentary, Miriam Lango, MD, department of head and neck surgery, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she agrees that a prospective clinical validation study is needed.

“Nevertheless, the use of this technology shows remarkable promise to transform the ability to identify and follow patients with HPV-related disease. Testing is likely to be increasingly used in routine clinical care, as it is commercially available,” Dr. Lango writes.

Still, she noted, “It is incumbent on us to establish evidence for strong and detailed surveillance guidelines to share among the cancer community.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Ferrandino and Dr. Lango have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the use of liquid biopsy as an adjunct biomarker for the diagnosis and surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oropharyngeal cancer.

In a retrospective observational cohort study, a commercially available blood test used to evaluate tumor tissue–modified viral-HPV DNA demonstrated 100% specificity for both diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer and surveillance for recurrence. Sensitivity was 91.5% for correctly identifying patients who have the disease and 88.4% for surveillance.

“A positive result appeared to confirm the presence of disease, [but] approximately 1 in 10 negative results in patients with pathologically confirmed HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma were falsely negative,” lead investigator Rocco Ferrandino, MD, with Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Therefore, further workup should still be pursued when clinical suspicion for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer is high,” Dr. Ferrandino said.

The study was published online, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, to coincide with presentation at the annual meeting of the American Head and Neck Society in Montreal.
 

‘Remarkable promise’

The diagnosis of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer currently relies on a tissue-based biopsy of the primary site or a regional lymph node; however, there has been growing interest in the potential of liquid biopsy for diagnosis and surveillance.

The commercially available assay that was evaluated in the study uses a distinct method to identify and quantify a tumor-associated or tumor-modified pattern of DNA fragments that significantly increases the specificity for identifying an HPV-associated malignant tumor. However, evaluation of the assay has been limited to small cohort studies and clinical trials.

In the current study, Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues evaluated the performance of the assay used during routine clinical practice at their high-volume institution over a period of nearly 3 years.

The study included 163 patients in the diagnostic cohort and 290 in the surveillance cohort. In the diagnostic cohort, 152 had HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer, and 11 had HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer. The sensitivity of the assay in pretreatment diagnosis was 91.5% (139 of 152 tests), and the specificity was 100% (11 of 11 tests).

In the surveillance cohort of 290 patients, 591 tests were evaluated. A total of 23 patients developed pathologically confirmed recurrences over a median follow-up of 40.5 months. The assay demonstrated sensitivity of 88.4% (38 of 43 tests) and specificity of 100% (548 of 548 tests) in detecting recurrences.

The median lead time from positive test to pathologic confirmation was 47 days.

“The lead time provided by positive assay results may allow a window of opportunity for salvage treatment or for the application of adjuvant systemic therapy,” Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues explain.

“While these results are exciting and may support adjunctive use of circulating tumor DNA testing for diagnosis and surveillance, we really need more prospective and multicenter studies to validate these findings,” Dr. Ferrandino said in an interview.

In an accompanying commentary, Miriam Lango, MD, department of head and neck surgery, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she agrees that a prospective clinical validation study is needed.

“Nevertheless, the use of this technology shows remarkable promise to transform the ability to identify and follow patients with HPV-related disease. Testing is likely to be increasingly used in routine clinical care, as it is commercially available,” Dr. Lango writes.

Still, she noted, “It is incumbent on us to establish evidence for strong and detailed surveillance guidelines to share among the cancer community.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Ferrandino and Dr. Lango have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Irradiating a small number of metastatic lesions does not appear to improve progression-free or overall survival in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy for advanced cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the phase 2 CHEERS trial, 52 patients with advanced solid tumors were randomized to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and 47 patients to the same treatment plus stereotactic body radiotherapy (3 x 8 Gy) to a maximum of three lesions before the second or third cycle of an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
• Patients had locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, or head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and were treated at five Belgian hospitals.
• Most patients had more than three lesions.
• Seven patients in the experimental group did not complete radiotherapy because of early progression or intercurrent illness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 12.5 months, median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in the radiotherapy group versus 2.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .82).
• Median overall survival was not significantly better with radiotherapy, compared with the control group (14.3 vs. 11 months; HR, 0.82; P = .47), nor was the objective response rate (27% vs. 22%; P = .56).
• However, a post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant association between the number of irradiated lesions and overall survival among patients receiving radiotherapy (HR, 0.31; P = .002).
• The incidence of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was 18% in both groups.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study was negative overall, the post hoc analysis coupled with “recent evidence suggests that treating all active disease sites with higher radiation doses ... may be a more promising strategy to optimize systemic disease control,” the authors concluded.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathieu Spaas, MD, department of radiation oncology, Ghent (Bellgium) University, and published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

• There was insufficient power to detect if certain cancers benefited more from add-on radiation because of the small sample size.
• More than half of patients in the control group had already received some form of radiotherapy before study inclusion, which may mean the study underestimated the benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Kom Op Tegen Kanker and Varian Medical Systems.

Investigators disclosed numerous industry ties, including Merck, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

TOPLINE:

Irradiating a small number of metastatic lesions does not appear to improve progression-free or overall survival in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy for advanced cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the phase 2 CHEERS trial, 52 patients with advanced solid tumors were randomized to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and 47 patients to the same treatment plus stereotactic body radiotherapy (3 x 8 Gy) to a maximum of three lesions before the second or third cycle of an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
• Patients had locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, or head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and were treated at five Belgian hospitals.
• Most patients had more than three lesions.
• Seven patients in the experimental group did not complete radiotherapy because of early progression or intercurrent illness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 12.5 months, median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in the radiotherapy group versus 2.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .82).
• Median overall survival was not significantly better with radiotherapy, compared with the control group (14.3 vs. 11 months; HR, 0.82; P = .47), nor was the objective response rate (27% vs. 22%; P = .56).
• However, a post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant association between the number of irradiated lesions and overall survival among patients receiving radiotherapy (HR, 0.31; P = .002).
• The incidence of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was 18% in both groups.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study was negative overall, the post hoc analysis coupled with “recent evidence suggests that treating all active disease sites with higher radiation doses ... may be a more promising strategy to optimize systemic disease control,” the authors concluded.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathieu Spaas, MD, department of radiation oncology, Ghent (Bellgium) University, and published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

• There was insufficient power to detect if certain cancers benefited more from add-on radiation because of the small sample size.
• More than half of patients in the control group had already received some form of radiotherapy before study inclusion, which may mean the study underestimated the benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Kom Op Tegen Kanker and Varian Medical Systems.

Investigators disclosed numerous industry ties, including Merck, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

TOPLINE:

Irradiating a small number of metastatic lesions does not appear to improve progression-free or overall survival in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy for advanced cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the phase 2 CHEERS trial, 52 patients with advanced solid tumors were randomized to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and 47 patients to the same treatment plus stereotactic body radiotherapy (3 x 8 Gy) to a maximum of three lesions before the second or third cycle of an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
• Patients had locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, or head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and were treated at five Belgian hospitals.
• Most patients had more than three lesions.
• Seven patients in the experimental group did not complete radiotherapy because of early progression or intercurrent illness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 12.5 months, median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in the radiotherapy group versus 2.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .82).
• Median overall survival was not significantly better with radiotherapy, compared with the control group (14.3 vs. 11 months; HR, 0.82; P = .47), nor was the objective response rate (27% vs. 22%; P = .56).
• However, a post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant association between the number of irradiated lesions and overall survival among patients receiving radiotherapy (HR, 0.31; P = .002).
• The incidence of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was 18% in both groups.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study was negative overall, the post hoc analysis coupled with “recent evidence suggests that treating all active disease sites with higher radiation doses ... may be a more promising strategy to optimize systemic disease control,” the authors concluded.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathieu Spaas, MD, department of radiation oncology, Ghent (Bellgium) University, and published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

• There was insufficient power to detect if certain cancers benefited more from add-on radiation because of the small sample size.
• More than half of patients in the control group had already received some form of radiotherapy before study inclusion, which may mean the study underestimated the benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Kom Op Tegen Kanker and Varian Medical Systems.

Investigators disclosed numerous industry ties, including Merck, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Patients with head and neck cancer and overweight saw better treatment response and survival after chemoradiation, compared with patients with the same type of cancer but a normal weight, a new study finds.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are the latest to parse the complex relationship between body mass index (BMI) and treatment in cancers that is sometimes called the “obesity paradox.” The researchers compared outcomes among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

While higher BMI is an established risk factor for many types of cancer and for cancer-specific mortality overall, studies in some cancers have shown that patients with higher BMI do better, possibly because excess BMI acts as a nutrient reserve against treatment-associated weight loss.
 

Methods and results

For their research, Sung Jun Ma, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues looked at records for 445 patients (84% men, median age 61) at Dr. Ma’s institution with nonmetastatic head and neck cancer who underwent chemoradiotherapy between 2005 and 2021. Patients were followed up for a median 48 months, and those with underweight at treatment initiation were excluded.

The researchers found that overweight BMI (25-29.9 kg/m²) was associated with improved overall survival at 5 years (71% vs. 58% of patients with normal weight), as well as 5-year progression-free survival (68% vs. 51%). No overall or progression-free survival benefit link was seen in patients with a BMI of 30 or higher, in contrast to some previous studies of patients with head and neck cancers. BMI was not associated with improved survival outcomes among human papillomavirus–positive patients.

Both overweight and obesity were associated with complete response on follow-up PET-CT, with nearly 92% of patients with overweight and 91% of patients with obesity (defined as having a BMI of 30 or higher) seeing a complete metabolic response, compared with 74% of patients with normal weight.

Having an overweight BMI was also associated with improvements in tumor recurrence, with fewer of patients with this type of BMI experiencing 5-year locoregional failure than patients with normal weight (7% vs 26%). Having an obese BMI was not associated with improvements in recurrence. All the reported differences reached statistical significance.

The study authors surmised that the discrepancies between outcomes for patients with overweight and obesity “may be due to a nonlinear association between BMI and survival, with the highest survival seen in the overweight BMI range.”

It was important to note that this study saw no differences in treatment interruptions between the BMI groups that could account for differences in outcomes. Only three patients in the cohort saw their radiotherapy treatment interrupted, Dr. Ma said in an interview.

“If we felt that the obesity paradox happens because people with normal BMI lose too much weight during the treatment course, treatment gets interrupted, and they get worse outcomes from suboptimal treatments, then we would have seen more treatment interruptions among those with normal BMI. However, that was not the case in our study,” he said. Rather, the results point to “a complex interaction among cancer, [a person’s build], and nutritional status.”

Clinicians should be aware, Dr. Ma added, “that the same head and neck cancer may behave more aggressively among patients with normal BMI, compared to others with overweight BMI. Patients with normal BMI may need to be monitored more closely and carefully for potentially worse outcomes.” 

The investigators acknowledged several weaknesses of their study, including its retrospective design, the measure of BMI using cutoffs rather than a continuum, and the collection of BMI information at a single time point. While 84% of patients in the study received cisplatin, the study did not contain information on cumulative cisplatin dose.
 

Importance of nutritional support during treatment highlighted

In an interview, Ari Rosenberg, MD, of the University of Chicago Medicine, commented that the findings highlighted the importance of expert nutritional supportive care during treatment and monitoring for patients with advanced head and neck cancers undergoing chemoradiation.

“Nutritional status is very important both at baseline and during treatment,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Even small changes in weight or BMI can be a key indicator of supportive care during chemoradiation and represent a biomarker to guide supportive management. ... The take home message is that patients should be treated at centers that have a high volume of advanced head and neck cancer patients, which have all the supportive components and expertise to optimize treatment delivery and maximize survival.”

Dr. Ma and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. None of its authors declared financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rosenberg disclosed receiving consulting fees from EMD Serono related to head and neck cancer treatment.
 

Patients with head and neck cancer and overweight saw better treatment response and survival after chemoradiation, compared with patients with the same type of cancer but a normal weight, a new study finds.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are the latest to parse the complex relationship between body mass index (BMI) and treatment in cancers that is sometimes called the “obesity paradox.” The researchers compared outcomes among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

While higher BMI is an established risk factor for many types of cancer and for cancer-specific mortality overall, studies in some cancers have shown that patients with higher BMI do better, possibly because excess BMI acts as a nutrient reserve against treatment-associated weight loss.
 

Methods and results

For their research, Sung Jun Ma, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues looked at records for 445 patients (84% men, median age 61) at Dr. Ma’s institution with nonmetastatic head and neck cancer who underwent chemoradiotherapy between 2005 and 2021. Patients were followed up for a median 48 months, and those with underweight at treatment initiation were excluded.

The researchers found that overweight BMI (25-29.9 kg/m²) was associated with improved overall survival at 5 years (71% vs. 58% of patients with normal weight), as well as 5-year progression-free survival (68% vs. 51%). No overall or progression-free survival benefit link was seen in patients with a BMI of 30 or higher, in contrast to some previous studies of patients with head and neck cancers. BMI was not associated with improved survival outcomes among human papillomavirus–positive patients.

Both overweight and obesity were associated with complete response on follow-up PET-CT, with nearly 92% of patients with overweight and 91% of patients with obesity (defined as having a BMI of 30 or higher) seeing a complete metabolic response, compared with 74% of patients with normal weight.

Having an overweight BMI was also associated with improvements in tumor recurrence, with fewer of patients with this type of BMI experiencing 5-year locoregional failure than patients with normal weight (7% vs 26%). Having an obese BMI was not associated with improvements in recurrence. All the reported differences reached statistical significance.

The study authors surmised that the discrepancies between outcomes for patients with overweight and obesity “may be due to a nonlinear association between BMI and survival, with the highest survival seen in the overweight BMI range.”

It was important to note that this study saw no differences in treatment interruptions between the BMI groups that could account for differences in outcomes. Only three patients in the cohort saw their radiotherapy treatment interrupted, Dr. Ma said in an interview.

“If we felt that the obesity paradox happens because people with normal BMI lose too much weight during the treatment course, treatment gets interrupted, and they get worse outcomes from suboptimal treatments, then we would have seen more treatment interruptions among those with normal BMI. However, that was not the case in our study,” he said. Rather, the results point to “a complex interaction among cancer, [a person’s build], and nutritional status.”

Clinicians should be aware, Dr. Ma added, “that the same head and neck cancer may behave more aggressively among patients with normal BMI, compared to others with overweight BMI. Patients with normal BMI may need to be monitored more closely and carefully for potentially worse outcomes.” 

The investigators acknowledged several weaknesses of their study, including its retrospective design, the measure of BMI using cutoffs rather than a continuum, and the collection of BMI information at a single time point. While 84% of patients in the study received cisplatin, the study did not contain information on cumulative cisplatin dose.
 

Importance of nutritional support during treatment highlighted

In an interview, Ari Rosenberg, MD, of the University of Chicago Medicine, commented that the findings highlighted the importance of expert nutritional supportive care during treatment and monitoring for patients with advanced head and neck cancers undergoing chemoradiation.

“Nutritional status is very important both at baseline and during treatment,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Even small changes in weight or BMI can be a key indicator of supportive care during chemoradiation and represent a biomarker to guide supportive management. ... The take home message is that patients should be treated at centers that have a high volume of advanced head and neck cancer patients, which have all the supportive components and expertise to optimize treatment delivery and maximize survival.”

Dr. Ma and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. None of its authors declared financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rosenberg disclosed receiving consulting fees from EMD Serono related to head and neck cancer treatment.
 

Patients with head and neck cancer and overweight saw better treatment response and survival after chemoradiation, compared with patients with the same type of cancer but a normal weight, a new study finds.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are the latest to parse the complex relationship between body mass index (BMI) and treatment in cancers that is sometimes called the “obesity paradox.” The researchers compared outcomes among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

While higher BMI is an established risk factor for many types of cancer and for cancer-specific mortality overall, studies in some cancers have shown that patients with higher BMI do better, possibly because excess BMI acts as a nutrient reserve against treatment-associated weight loss.
 

Methods and results

For their research, Sung Jun Ma, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues looked at records for 445 patients (84% men, median age 61) at Dr. Ma’s institution with nonmetastatic head and neck cancer who underwent chemoradiotherapy between 2005 and 2021. Patients were followed up for a median 48 months, and those with underweight at treatment initiation were excluded.

The researchers found that overweight BMI (25-29.9 kg/m²) was associated with improved overall survival at 5 years (71% vs. 58% of patients with normal weight), as well as 5-year progression-free survival (68% vs. 51%). No overall or progression-free survival benefit link was seen in patients with a BMI of 30 or higher, in contrast to some previous studies of patients with head and neck cancers. BMI was not associated with improved survival outcomes among human papillomavirus–positive patients.

Both overweight and obesity were associated with complete response on follow-up PET-CT, with nearly 92% of patients with overweight and 91% of patients with obesity (defined as having a BMI of 30 or higher) seeing a complete metabolic response, compared with 74% of patients with normal weight.

Having an overweight BMI was also associated with improvements in tumor recurrence, with fewer of patients with this type of BMI experiencing 5-year locoregional failure than patients with normal weight (7% vs 26%). Having an obese BMI was not associated with improvements in recurrence. All the reported differences reached statistical significance.

The study authors surmised that the discrepancies between outcomes for patients with overweight and obesity “may be due to a nonlinear association between BMI and survival, with the highest survival seen in the overweight BMI range.”

It was important to note that this study saw no differences in treatment interruptions between the BMI groups that could account for differences in outcomes. Only three patients in the cohort saw their radiotherapy treatment interrupted, Dr. Ma said in an interview.

“If we felt that the obesity paradox happens because people with normal BMI lose too much weight during the treatment course, treatment gets interrupted, and they get worse outcomes from suboptimal treatments, then we would have seen more treatment interruptions among those with normal BMI. However, that was not the case in our study,” he said. Rather, the results point to “a complex interaction among cancer, [a person’s build], and nutritional status.”

Clinicians should be aware, Dr. Ma added, “that the same head and neck cancer may behave more aggressively among patients with normal BMI, compared to others with overweight BMI. Patients with normal BMI may need to be monitored more closely and carefully for potentially worse outcomes.” 

The investigators acknowledged several weaknesses of their study, including its retrospective design, the measure of BMI using cutoffs rather than a continuum, and the collection of BMI information at a single time point. While 84% of patients in the study received cisplatin, the study did not contain information on cumulative cisplatin dose.
 

Importance of nutritional support during treatment highlighted

In an interview, Ari Rosenberg, MD, of the University of Chicago Medicine, commented that the findings highlighted the importance of expert nutritional supportive care during treatment and monitoring for patients with advanced head and neck cancers undergoing chemoradiation.

“Nutritional status is very important both at baseline and during treatment,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Even small changes in weight or BMI can be a key indicator of supportive care during chemoradiation and represent a biomarker to guide supportive management. ... The take home message is that patients should be treated at centers that have a high volume of advanced head and neck cancer patients, which have all the supportive components and expertise to optimize treatment delivery and maximize survival.”

Dr. Ma and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. None of its authors declared financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rosenberg disclosed receiving consulting fees from EMD Serono related to head and neck cancer treatment.
 

A 65-year-old African American man presented to an Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery clinic at a tertiary Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facility for evaluation. The patient recalled a past diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), possibly associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV). After receiving the diagnosis at another VHA facility, the patient opted to seek care at a local, non-VHA facility and received approximately 7 weeks of daily radiation and weekly infusions of chemotherapy.

Six years after his initial diagnosis and treatment, the patient said he had a persistent cough with any meaningful attempts to eat or drink. He also noted he lost at least 10 lbs in the last 3 months and had been hospitalized twice during the past winter. During his second hospitalization he spent 4 days on a ventilator in the intensive care unit.

On examination, the patient appeared frail and cachectic, with significant fibrosis of the neck skin and moderate trismus. His dentition was in poor health, and an in-clinic flexible endoscopy demonstrated clear silent aspiration of oral secretions. Given his failure to thrive, the patient was urgently admitted to the hospital. A modified barium swallow study performed by the head and neck Speech Pathology team demonstrated gross aspiration with all consistencies. After extensive counseling, the patient agreed to the placement of a gastrostomy tube. He was discharged in stable condition with adequate supplies and self-care training. He was advised to continue follow-up in the Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship clinic.

Two years later, in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the patient was admitted to the hospital with COVID pneumonia. Given the damage to his lungs over the previous decade from recurrent episodes of aspiration pneumonia, the patient succumbed.

An Unexpected, Unrelenting Epidemic

Shifting population dynamics and behaviors have led to an explosion in the incidence of cancers associated with infection by oncogenic subtypes of HPV, among which cancer of the oropharynx represents the most common malignancy.^1,2 OPC now afflicts more than 30,000 new patients in the United States each year.³ Given current vaccination rates against oncogenic HPV, the overall trend of increasing incidence is not expected to stabilize until the 2040s.³ Traditional cancers of the head and neck region were previously fatal after 5 years in more than 60% of cases; however, today patients with HPV-associated OPC can expect a more than 80% chance of being alive 5 years after treatment.^4-7 Combining the increasing incidence of OPC with a high chance of oncologic cure has led to an ever-expanding cohort of OPC survivors.

Enthusiasm about a high rate of survival after an HPV-associated OPC diagnosis is now partially dampened by an increasing realization that neither oncologists nor healthcare systems are remotely prepared for this rapidly expanding cohort of OPC survivors. Their unique needs and problems have yet to be objectively defined and quantified.

Relationship Between Survival and Long-Term Toxicity in HPV-Associated OPC

Survivorship care after OPC treatment is a growing challenge in terms of the number of patients affected, the negative impact on quality of life (QOL), and the potential burden on the healthcare system. The rapidly growing number of OPC survivors who are living long enough to develop delayed adverse effects related to their past OPC treatment^1,2,8 includes many patients in whom toxicities can be truly debilitating,^9,10 generating significant unmet needs.

Tumor and Treatment Toxicity

Although HPV-associated OPC demonstrates an excellent response to conventional chemoradiotherapy (CRT), this finding cannot be interpreted to mean that reducing treatment intensity is safe for patients with this disease. Prospective trials have now demonstrated that neither replacing or eliminating conventional chemotherapy, nor significantly reducing radiation doses, can be considered safe at this time.^11-15 As a result, a patient with newly diagnosed HPV-associated OPC in 2025, and potentially even 2030, is likely to receive the same treatment as patients who were treated in the late 2010s.¹⁴

Three decades ago, the chronic effects of tumor and treatment were largely limited to a small cohort of survivors; however, today they affect more patients.^1,2,7 Chronic xerostomia, dysphagia, trismus, radiation fibrosis, and osteoradionecrosis (ORN) now confront tens of thousands of OPC survivors; over the coming decades, these treatment effects have the potential to affect millions of patients.^16-22

While most acute toxicities resolve within several months of completing CRT, late CRT sequelae tend to be dynamic and can progress silently over many years.^16,23 Adverse effects vary widely, with many toxicities (eg, dysphagia, ORN) being particularly debilitating. Many of these effects occur in a radiation dose–dependent fashion, but radiation dose does not fully predict late toxicities, pointing to a role for other, yet unidentified contributing factors.^24,25

Dysphagia in Survivors of OPC

About two-thirds of survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) who seek follow-up care 5 years after treatment report dysphagia and at least partial dependence on a feeding tube.²⁶ The incidence of dysphagia increases proportionately with higher radiation doses delivered to the pharyngeal constrictors and supraglottic larynx.¹⁸ Dysphagia can severely reduce QOL years after treatment, necessitating substantial changes in diet and social behavior among OPC survivors. Often, patients are forced to choose between chronic malnutrition or starvation and feeding tube dependence.²⁷ Loss of a normal oral diet is frequently one of the most affected QOL measures for OPC survivors.²⁸

In addition to effects on QOL, dysphagia can have life-threatening consequences. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, life-threatening aspiration occurred after > 24 months at a reported incidence ranging from 3% to nearly 35%. Although a reduction in radiation dose to the pharyngeal constrictors can reduce chronic dysphagia,²⁷ whether this can be done safely in most OPC patients, particularly those with bulky primary tumors, remains unclear.

Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in Survivors of OPC

ORN is one of the most potentially serious complications of CRT and may not manifest for years after treatment. Its median time of onset after radiotherapy is 8 years in patients with OPC.²⁴ Bone injury and impaired healing of the alveolar mucosa are signs of ORN, which occurs in ~7% of patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy for OPC.¹⁷ ORN is accompanied by pain, difficulties with chewing, exacerbation of concomitant dysphagia and, in the advanced stage—gross cosmetic deformity secondary to mandibular or maxillary fracture and/or decay.²⁹ Despite the severity of this complication, we are just beginning to understand why ORN develops in a subset of patients. Although ORN is generally more common in patients with advanced-stage OPC who receive higher doses of radiation to a larger overall bone volume,^17,19,24,30 comprehensive translational research efforts focused on ORN (as well as other late toxicities of OPC treatment) are still in their infancy.

Unmet Needs in Predicting and Evaluating Late Toxicities

Predicting which patients will experience long-term treatment toxicities or which types of late toxicities they may develop is not yet possible. Whereas increased data collection and prognostic models can help inform healthcare systems as to the expected frequencies of toxicity, they are unlikely to be prognostic at the individual patient level. As such, there is a critical need for individualized biomarker strategies that can predict one’s risk of toxicity and identify normal tissue shifts in biology and function early in the process to initiate interventions before significant deterioration. Adding to the complexity of predicting late toxicities is the lack of standardization in instruments used to categorize them. Examples of tools that may be used to categorize dysphagia include the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grading scale, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grading system, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer.²⁰ The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for head and neck cancer may also be used to catalog dysphagia and other common symptoms of HNC, as well as treatment-related concerns.³¹ Magnetic resonance imaging-based techniques coupled with machine learning approaches represent emerging tools that may have a role in identifying early radiation-induced bone changes that can facilitate early detection of ORN.^32,33 Although conventional and newer tools can be used to generate objective metrics of treatment-related toxicity, consistent and appropriate deployment across the entire cohort of OPC survivors in the United States remains a distant goal.

Calibrating Treatment Intensity to Disease Intensity 

Given the risk of severe and potentially life-threatening consequences of radiation-based treatment, there is a large unmet need to better calibrate treatment intensity to the intensity of HPV-associated OPC.^14,34 In light of the good prognosis of the disease in most patients, recent efforts have focused on identifying ways to de-escalate treatment intensity while preserving the good outcomes known to be possible for patients with HPV-associated OPC. Improving tolerability and limiting the risk of late effects of radiation-based treatment is especially important with the aging population of HPV-associated OPC survivors, who would also be expected to have unrelated comorbidities.¹

Various modes of de-escalation have been studied, including adding surgery to CRT, reducing radiation dose, and modifying systemic therapy regimens. Most of these efforts have largely failed to identify a safe regimen for treatment de-escalation that applies to a majority or even a significant plurality of patients with OPC.^14,35,36 Although CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE-048 garnered excitement when immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly prolonged overall survival and had a more favorable safety profile than standard systemic therapy in recurrent and metastatic OPC,^11,37,38 adding definitive frontline avelumab to CRT failed to prolong progression-free survival versus CRT alone in the phase 3 JAVELIN Head and Neck 100 trial.¹³ Combined with additional recent trial data, these findings make it unlikely that an ICI-based regimen will provide previously unavailable de-escalation options for patients with OPC in the near future.

Considering continued de-escalation efforts, it is important to remember that survival is not uniform among all patients with HPV-associated OPC. For example, patients with HPV-associated OPC and a history of current or prior heavy tobacco use have not experienced the same dramatic prolongation in overall survival as their nonsmoking counterparts.³⁶ Patients with recurrent disease also face a dismal prognosis, with failure rates of about 70% with salvage treatment with surgery, re-irradiation, or systemic therapy.^38-41 Therefore, de-escalation may not be appropriate in all patients, but identifying which patients are at risk of overtreatment is not straightforward. Better risk stratification of patients may provide part of the solution but will require rigorous testing and long-term follow-up to establish.

Discussion

There is an urgent need to carefully consider how to manage long-term survivors of HPV-associated OPC. With ever-increasing numbers of patients who are living years beyond their OPC treatment, continual reevaluation of treatment strategies in certain subsets of patients and making concerted efforts to identify and manage late toxicities early is paramount. Yet there remains a critical gap in knowledge due to insufficient metrics for both toxicity intensity and the frequency of debilitating, life-threatening toxicity. Unfortunately, the lack of tools available combined with the mismatch in disease intensity with treatment intensity likely results in excessive treatment-induced toxicity for many patients.

In the absence of clear evidence about which treatment strategy to use for individual patients, clinicians are tasked with making therapeutic choices without being fully able to predict outcomes. Patient preference is important to consider, but these conversations can be complicated. How does one talk to a patient about their willingness to risk a cancer recurrence and potentially risk late toxicities when the clinician does not know whether that individual patient will develop late toxicities, or know how severe they will be? It is a tradeoff between QOL (ie, possible feeding tube dependence) and survival—yet the magnitude of the effect on QOL remains impossible to predict at present for the individual patient.

Moreover, the needs of individual OPC survivors vary. A cross-sectional study performed at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre found that 61% of the 158 participants had unmet needs related to their cancer survivorship.⁴² Meeting the needs of survivors may require the development of better screening instruments that can manage various complications early and effectively. Continuing to follow OPC survivors with a multidisciplinary team would most certainly be beneficial and has been reported to improve QOL.⁴³ Continual Speech Pathology management and therapy from the time of diagnosis into the survivorship phase of care has been suggested as one way to improve functional outcomes.⁴⁴ Given that coordinating long-term care teams is logistically challenging, well-planned research is warranted to equip these teams to provide OPC survivors with the care they need. These efforts will be particularly important considering the large number of survivors who will need this type of care in the coming decades. The time to start is now well past.

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

A 65-year-old African American man presented to an Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery clinic at a tertiary Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facility for evaluation. The patient recalled a past diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), possibly associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV). After receiving the diagnosis at another VHA facility, the patient opted to seek care at a local, non-VHA facility and received approximately 7 weeks of daily radiation and weekly infusions of chemotherapy.

Six years after his initial diagnosis and treatment, the patient said he had a persistent cough with any meaningful attempts to eat or drink. He also noted he lost at least 10 lbs in the last 3 months and had been hospitalized twice during the past winter. During his second hospitalization he spent 4 days on a ventilator in the intensive care unit.

On examination, the patient appeared frail and cachectic, with significant fibrosis of the neck skin and moderate trismus. His dentition was in poor health, and an in-clinic flexible endoscopy demonstrated clear silent aspiration of oral secretions. Given his failure to thrive, the patient was urgently admitted to the hospital. A modified barium swallow study performed by the head and neck Speech Pathology team demonstrated gross aspiration with all consistencies. After extensive counseling, the patient agreed to the placement of a gastrostomy tube. He was discharged in stable condition with adequate supplies and self-care training. He was advised to continue follow-up in the Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship clinic.

Two years later, in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the patient was admitted to the hospital with COVID pneumonia. Given the damage to his lungs over the previous decade from recurrent episodes of aspiration pneumonia, the patient succumbed.

An Unexpected, Unrelenting Epidemic

Shifting population dynamics and behaviors have led to an explosion in the incidence of cancers associated with infection by oncogenic subtypes of HPV, among which cancer of the oropharynx represents the most common malignancy.^1,2 OPC now afflicts more than 30,000 new patients in the United States each year.³ Given current vaccination rates against oncogenic HPV, the overall trend of increasing incidence is not expected to stabilize until the 2040s.³ Traditional cancers of the head and neck region were previously fatal after 5 years in more than 60% of cases; however, today patients with HPV-associated OPC can expect a more than 80% chance of being alive 5 years after treatment.^4-7 Combining the increasing incidence of OPC with a high chance of oncologic cure has led to an ever-expanding cohort of OPC survivors.

Enthusiasm about a high rate of survival after an HPV-associated OPC diagnosis is now partially dampened by an increasing realization that neither oncologists nor healthcare systems are remotely prepared for this rapidly expanding cohort of OPC survivors. Their unique needs and problems have yet to be objectively defined and quantified.

Relationship Between Survival and Long-Term Toxicity in HPV-Associated OPC

Survivorship care after OPC treatment is a growing challenge in terms of the number of patients affected, the negative impact on quality of life (QOL), and the potential burden on the healthcare system. The rapidly growing number of OPC survivors who are living long enough to develop delayed adverse effects related to their past OPC treatment^1,2,8 includes many patients in whom toxicities can be truly debilitating,^9,10 generating significant unmet needs.

Tumor and Treatment Toxicity

Although HPV-associated OPC demonstrates an excellent response to conventional chemoradiotherapy (CRT), this finding cannot be interpreted to mean that reducing treatment intensity is safe for patients with this disease. Prospective trials have now demonstrated that neither replacing or eliminating conventional chemotherapy, nor significantly reducing radiation doses, can be considered safe at this time.^11-15 As a result, a patient with newly diagnosed HPV-associated OPC in 2025, and potentially even 2030, is likely to receive the same treatment as patients who were treated in the late 2010s.¹⁴

Three decades ago, the chronic effects of tumor and treatment were largely limited to a small cohort of survivors; however, today they affect more patients.^1,2,7 Chronic xerostomia, dysphagia, trismus, radiation fibrosis, and osteoradionecrosis (ORN) now confront tens of thousands of OPC survivors; over the coming decades, these treatment effects have the potential to affect millions of patients.^16-22

While most acute toxicities resolve within several months of completing CRT, late CRT sequelae tend to be dynamic and can progress silently over many years.^16,23 Adverse effects vary widely, with many toxicities (eg, dysphagia, ORN) being particularly debilitating. Many of these effects occur in a radiation dose–dependent fashion, but radiation dose does not fully predict late toxicities, pointing to a role for other, yet unidentified contributing factors.^24,25

Dysphagia in Survivors of OPC

About two-thirds of survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) who seek follow-up care 5 years after treatment report dysphagia and at least partial dependence on a feeding tube.²⁶ The incidence of dysphagia increases proportionately with higher radiation doses delivered to the pharyngeal constrictors and supraglottic larynx.¹⁸ Dysphagia can severely reduce QOL years after treatment, necessitating substantial changes in diet and social behavior among OPC survivors. Often, patients are forced to choose between chronic malnutrition or starvation and feeding tube dependence.²⁷ Loss of a normal oral diet is frequently one of the most affected QOL measures for OPC survivors.²⁸

In addition to effects on QOL, dysphagia can have life-threatening consequences. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, life-threatening aspiration occurred after > 24 months at a reported incidence ranging from 3% to nearly 35%. Although a reduction in radiation dose to the pharyngeal constrictors can reduce chronic dysphagia,²⁷ whether this can be done safely in most OPC patients, particularly those with bulky primary tumors, remains unclear.

Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in Survivors of OPC

ORN is one of the most potentially serious complications of CRT and may not manifest for years after treatment. Its median time of onset after radiotherapy is 8 years in patients with OPC.²⁴ Bone injury and impaired healing of the alveolar mucosa are signs of ORN, which occurs in ~7% of patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy for OPC.¹⁷ ORN is accompanied by pain, difficulties with chewing, exacerbation of concomitant dysphagia and, in the advanced stage—gross cosmetic deformity secondary to mandibular or maxillary fracture and/or decay.²⁹ Despite the severity of this complication, we are just beginning to understand why ORN develops in a subset of patients. Although ORN is generally more common in patients with advanced-stage OPC who receive higher doses of radiation to a larger overall bone volume,^17,19,24,30 comprehensive translational research efforts focused on ORN (as well as other late toxicities of OPC treatment) are still in their infancy.

Unmet Needs in Predicting and Evaluating Late Toxicities

Predicting which patients will experience long-term treatment toxicities or which types of late toxicities they may develop is not yet possible. Whereas increased data collection and prognostic models can help inform healthcare systems as to the expected frequencies of toxicity, they are unlikely to be prognostic at the individual patient level. As such, there is a critical need for individualized biomarker strategies that can predict one’s risk of toxicity and identify normal tissue shifts in biology and function early in the process to initiate interventions before significant deterioration. Adding to the complexity of predicting late toxicities is the lack of standardization in instruments used to categorize them. Examples of tools that may be used to categorize dysphagia include the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grading scale, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grading system, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer.²⁰ The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for head and neck cancer may also be used to catalog dysphagia and other common symptoms of HNC, as well as treatment-related concerns.³¹ Magnetic resonance imaging-based techniques coupled with machine learning approaches represent emerging tools that may have a role in identifying early radiation-induced bone changes that can facilitate early detection of ORN.^32,33 Although conventional and newer tools can be used to generate objective metrics of treatment-related toxicity, consistent and appropriate deployment across the entire cohort of OPC survivors in the United States remains a distant goal.

Calibrating Treatment Intensity to Disease Intensity 

Given the risk of severe and potentially life-threatening consequences of radiation-based treatment, there is a large unmet need to better calibrate treatment intensity to the intensity of HPV-associated OPC.^14,34 In light of the good prognosis of the disease in most patients, recent efforts have focused on identifying ways to de-escalate treatment intensity while preserving the good outcomes known to be possible for patients with HPV-associated OPC. Improving tolerability and limiting the risk of late effects of radiation-based treatment is especially important with the aging population of HPV-associated OPC survivors, who would also be expected to have unrelated comorbidities.¹

Various modes of de-escalation have been studied, including adding surgery to CRT, reducing radiation dose, and modifying systemic therapy regimens. Most of these efforts have largely failed to identify a safe regimen for treatment de-escalation that applies to a majority or even a significant plurality of patients with OPC.^14,35,36 Although CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE-048 garnered excitement when immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly prolonged overall survival and had a more favorable safety profile than standard systemic therapy in recurrent and metastatic OPC,^11,37,38 adding definitive frontline avelumab to CRT failed to prolong progression-free survival versus CRT alone in the phase 3 JAVELIN Head and Neck 100 trial.¹³ Combined with additional recent trial data, these findings make it unlikely that an ICI-based regimen will provide previously unavailable de-escalation options for patients with OPC in the near future.

Considering continued de-escalation efforts, it is important to remember that survival is not uniform among all patients with HPV-associated OPC. For example, patients with HPV-associated OPC and a history of current or prior heavy tobacco use have not experienced the same dramatic prolongation in overall survival as their nonsmoking counterparts.³⁶ Patients with recurrent disease also face a dismal prognosis, with failure rates of about 70% with salvage treatment with surgery, re-irradiation, or systemic therapy.^38-41 Therefore, de-escalation may not be appropriate in all patients, but identifying which patients are at risk of overtreatment is not straightforward. Better risk stratification of patients may provide part of the solution but will require rigorous testing and long-term follow-up to establish.

Discussion

There is an urgent need to carefully consider how to manage long-term survivors of HPV-associated OPC. With ever-increasing numbers of patients who are living years beyond their OPC treatment, continual reevaluation of treatment strategies in certain subsets of patients and making concerted efforts to identify and manage late toxicities early is paramount. Yet there remains a critical gap in knowledge due to insufficient metrics for both toxicity intensity and the frequency of debilitating, life-threatening toxicity. Unfortunately, the lack of tools available combined with the mismatch in disease intensity with treatment intensity likely results in excessive treatment-induced toxicity for many patients.

In the absence of clear evidence about which treatment strategy to use for individual patients, clinicians are tasked with making therapeutic choices without being fully able to predict outcomes. Patient preference is important to consider, but these conversations can be complicated. How does one talk to a patient about their willingness to risk a cancer recurrence and potentially risk late toxicities when the clinician does not know whether that individual patient will develop late toxicities, or know how severe they will be? It is a tradeoff between QOL (ie, possible feeding tube dependence) and survival—yet the magnitude of the effect on QOL remains impossible to predict at present for the individual patient.

Moreover, the needs of individual OPC survivors vary. A cross-sectional study performed at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre found that 61% of the 158 participants had unmet needs related to their cancer survivorship.⁴² Meeting the needs of survivors may require the development of better screening instruments that can manage various complications early and effectively. Continuing to follow OPC survivors with a multidisciplinary team would most certainly be beneficial and has been reported to improve QOL.⁴³ Continual Speech Pathology management and therapy from the time of diagnosis into the survivorship phase of care has been suggested as one way to improve functional outcomes.⁴⁴ Given that coordinating long-term care teams is logistically challenging, well-planned research is warranted to equip these teams to provide OPC survivors with the care they need. These efforts will be particularly important considering the large number of survivors who will need this type of care in the coming decades. The time to start is now well past.

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

A 65-year-old African American man presented to an Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery clinic at a tertiary Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facility for evaluation. The patient recalled a past diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), possibly associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV). After receiving the diagnosis at another VHA facility, the patient opted to seek care at a local, non-VHA facility and received approximately 7 weeks of daily radiation and weekly infusions of chemotherapy.

Six years after his initial diagnosis and treatment, the patient said he had a persistent cough with any meaningful attempts to eat or drink. He also noted he lost at least 10 lbs in the last 3 months and had been hospitalized twice during the past winter. During his second hospitalization he spent 4 days on a ventilator in the intensive care unit.

On examination, the patient appeared frail and cachectic, with significant fibrosis of the neck skin and moderate trismus. His dentition was in poor health, and an in-clinic flexible endoscopy demonstrated clear silent aspiration of oral secretions. Given his failure to thrive, the patient was urgently admitted to the hospital. A modified barium swallow study performed by the head and neck Speech Pathology team demonstrated gross aspiration with all consistencies. After extensive counseling, the patient agreed to the placement of a gastrostomy tube. He was discharged in stable condition with adequate supplies and self-care training. He was advised to continue follow-up in the Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship clinic.

Two years later, in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the patient was admitted to the hospital with COVID pneumonia. Given the damage to his lungs over the previous decade from recurrent episodes of aspiration pneumonia, the patient succumbed.

An Unexpected, Unrelenting Epidemic

Shifting population dynamics and behaviors have led to an explosion in the incidence of cancers associated with infection by oncogenic subtypes of HPV, among which cancer of the oropharynx represents the most common malignancy.^1,2 OPC now afflicts more than 30,000 new patients in the United States each year.³ Given current vaccination rates against oncogenic HPV, the overall trend of increasing incidence is not expected to stabilize until the 2040s.³ Traditional cancers of the head and neck region were previously fatal after 5 years in more than 60% of cases; however, today patients with HPV-associated OPC can expect a more than 80% chance of being alive 5 years after treatment.^4-7 Combining the increasing incidence of OPC with a high chance of oncologic cure has led to an ever-expanding cohort of OPC survivors.

Enthusiasm about a high rate of survival after an HPV-associated OPC diagnosis is now partially dampened by an increasing realization that neither oncologists nor healthcare systems are remotely prepared for this rapidly expanding cohort of OPC survivors. Their unique needs and problems have yet to be objectively defined and quantified.

Relationship Between Survival and Long-Term Toxicity in HPV-Associated OPC

Survivorship care after OPC treatment is a growing challenge in terms of the number of patients affected, the negative impact on quality of life (QOL), and the potential burden on the healthcare system. The rapidly growing number of OPC survivors who are living long enough to develop delayed adverse effects related to their past OPC treatment^1,2,8 includes many patients in whom toxicities can be truly debilitating,^9,10 generating significant unmet needs.

Tumor and Treatment Toxicity

Although HPV-associated OPC demonstrates an excellent response to conventional chemoradiotherapy (CRT), this finding cannot be interpreted to mean that reducing treatment intensity is safe for patients with this disease. Prospective trials have now demonstrated that neither replacing or eliminating conventional chemotherapy, nor significantly reducing radiation doses, can be considered safe at this time.^11-15 As a result, a patient with newly diagnosed HPV-associated OPC in 2025, and potentially even 2030, is likely to receive the same treatment as patients who were treated in the late 2010s.¹⁴

Three decades ago, the chronic effects of tumor and treatment were largely limited to a small cohort of survivors; however, today they affect more patients.^1,2,7 Chronic xerostomia, dysphagia, trismus, radiation fibrosis, and osteoradionecrosis (ORN) now confront tens of thousands of OPC survivors; over the coming decades, these treatment effects have the potential to affect millions of patients.^16-22

While most acute toxicities resolve within several months of completing CRT, late CRT sequelae tend to be dynamic and can progress silently over many years.^16,23 Adverse effects vary widely, with many toxicities (eg, dysphagia, ORN) being particularly debilitating. Many of these effects occur in a radiation dose–dependent fashion, but radiation dose does not fully predict late toxicities, pointing to a role for other, yet unidentified contributing factors.^24,25

Dysphagia in Survivors of OPC

About two-thirds of survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) who seek follow-up care 5 years after treatment report dysphagia and at least partial dependence on a feeding tube.²⁶ The incidence of dysphagia increases proportionately with higher radiation doses delivered to the pharyngeal constrictors and supraglottic larynx.¹⁸ Dysphagia can severely reduce QOL years after treatment, necessitating substantial changes in diet and social behavior among OPC survivors. Often, patients are forced to choose between chronic malnutrition or starvation and feeding tube dependence.²⁷ Loss of a normal oral diet is frequently one of the most affected QOL measures for OPC survivors.²⁸

In addition to effects on QOL, dysphagia can have life-threatening consequences. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, life-threatening aspiration occurred after > 24 months at a reported incidence ranging from 3% to nearly 35%. Although a reduction in radiation dose to the pharyngeal constrictors can reduce chronic dysphagia,²⁷ whether this can be done safely in most OPC patients, particularly those with bulky primary tumors, remains unclear.

Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in Survivors of OPC

ORN is one of the most potentially serious complications of CRT and may not manifest for years after treatment. Its median time of onset after radiotherapy is 8 years in patients with OPC.²⁴ Bone injury and impaired healing of the alveolar mucosa are signs of ORN, which occurs in ~7% of patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy for OPC.¹⁷ ORN is accompanied by pain, difficulties with chewing, exacerbation of concomitant dysphagia and, in the advanced stage—gross cosmetic deformity secondary to mandibular or maxillary fracture and/or decay.²⁹ Despite the severity of this complication, we are just beginning to understand why ORN develops in a subset of patients. Although ORN is generally more common in patients with advanced-stage OPC who receive higher doses of radiation to a larger overall bone volume,^17,19,24,30 comprehensive translational research efforts focused on ORN (as well as other late toxicities of OPC treatment) are still in their infancy.

Unmet Needs in Predicting and Evaluating Late Toxicities

Predicting which patients will experience long-term treatment toxicities or which types of late toxicities they may develop is not yet possible. Whereas increased data collection and prognostic models can help inform healthcare systems as to the expected frequencies of toxicity, they are unlikely to be prognostic at the individual patient level. As such, there is a critical need for individualized biomarker strategies that can predict one’s risk of toxicity and identify normal tissue shifts in biology and function early in the process to initiate interventions before significant deterioration. Adding to the complexity of predicting late toxicities is the lack of standardization in instruments used to categorize them. Examples of tools that may be used to categorize dysphagia include the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grading scale, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grading system, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer.²⁰ The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for head and neck cancer may also be used to catalog dysphagia and other common symptoms of HNC, as well as treatment-related concerns.³¹ Magnetic resonance imaging-based techniques coupled with machine learning approaches represent emerging tools that may have a role in identifying early radiation-induced bone changes that can facilitate early detection of ORN.^32,33 Although conventional and newer tools can be used to generate objective metrics of treatment-related toxicity, consistent and appropriate deployment across the entire cohort of OPC survivors in the United States remains a distant goal.

Calibrating Treatment Intensity to Disease Intensity 

Given the risk of severe and potentially life-threatening consequences of radiation-based treatment, there is a large unmet need to better calibrate treatment intensity to the intensity of HPV-associated OPC.^14,34 In light of the good prognosis of the disease in most patients, recent efforts have focused on identifying ways to de-escalate treatment intensity while preserving the good outcomes known to be possible for patients with HPV-associated OPC. Improving tolerability and limiting the risk of late effects of radiation-based treatment is especially important with the aging population of HPV-associated OPC survivors, who would also be expected to have unrelated comorbidities.¹

Various modes of de-escalation have been studied, including adding surgery to CRT, reducing radiation dose, and modifying systemic therapy regimens. Most of these efforts have largely failed to identify a safe regimen for treatment de-escalation that applies to a majority or even a significant plurality of patients with OPC.^14,35,36 Although CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE-048 garnered excitement when immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly prolonged overall survival and had a more favorable safety profile than standard systemic therapy in recurrent and metastatic OPC,^11,37,38 adding definitive frontline avelumab to CRT failed to prolong progression-free survival versus CRT alone in the phase 3 JAVELIN Head and Neck 100 trial.¹³ Combined with additional recent trial data, these findings make it unlikely that an ICI-based regimen will provide previously unavailable de-escalation options for patients with OPC in the near future.

Considering continued de-escalation efforts, it is important to remember that survival is not uniform among all patients with HPV-associated OPC. For example, patients with HPV-associated OPC and a history of current or prior heavy tobacco use have not experienced the same dramatic prolongation in overall survival as their nonsmoking counterparts.³⁶ Patients with recurrent disease also face a dismal prognosis, with failure rates of about 70% with salvage treatment with surgery, re-irradiation, or systemic therapy.^38-41 Therefore, de-escalation may not be appropriate in all patients, but identifying which patients are at risk of overtreatment is not straightforward. Better risk stratification of patients may provide part of the solution but will require rigorous testing and long-term follow-up to establish.

Discussion

There is an urgent need to carefully consider how to manage long-term survivors of HPV-associated OPC. With ever-increasing numbers of patients who are living years beyond their OPC treatment, continual reevaluation of treatment strategies in certain subsets of patients and making concerted efforts to identify and manage late toxicities early is paramount. Yet there remains a critical gap in knowledge due to insufficient metrics for both toxicity intensity and the frequency of debilitating, life-threatening toxicity. Unfortunately, the lack of tools available combined with the mismatch in disease intensity with treatment intensity likely results in excessive treatment-induced toxicity for many patients.

In the absence of clear evidence about which treatment strategy to use for individual patients, clinicians are tasked with making therapeutic choices without being fully able to predict outcomes. Patient preference is important to consider, but these conversations can be complicated. How does one talk to a patient about their willingness to risk a cancer recurrence and potentially risk late toxicities when the clinician does not know whether that individual patient will develop late toxicities, or know how severe they will be? It is a tradeoff between QOL (ie, possible feeding tube dependence) and survival—yet the magnitude of the effect on QOL remains impossible to predict at present for the individual patient.

Moreover, the needs of individual OPC survivors vary. A cross-sectional study performed at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre found that 61% of the 158 participants had unmet needs related to their cancer survivorship.⁴² Meeting the needs of survivors may require the development of better screening instruments that can manage various complications early and effectively. Continuing to follow OPC survivors with a multidisciplinary team would most certainly be beneficial and has been reported to improve QOL.⁴³ Continual Speech Pathology management and therapy from the time of diagnosis into the survivorship phase of care has been suggested as one way to improve functional outcomes.⁴⁴ Given that coordinating long-term care teams is logistically challenging, well-planned research is warranted to equip these teams to provide OPC survivors with the care they need. These efforts will be particularly important considering the large number of survivors who will need this type of care in the coming decades. The time to start is now well past.

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

While people living with rare cancers continue to face daunting obstacles, progress is being made, and there are reasons to hope for a better future. Advances in genomic testing and precision medicine provide increasing evidence that rare cancers can be more efficiently and effectively diagnosed and treated. Genomic tests examine tumor DNA to identify mutations that are unique to an individual’s cancer. This genetic information enables a more precise diagnosis and targeted treatment approach. Jim Palma, Co-Lead of the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition, said “There is promise for rare cancer patients due to increased legislative efforts to cover the costs of genomic testing coupled by an increase in FDA approvals for targeted and tissue agnostic therapies.”

In 2019, the National Cancer Institute established MyPART, a vast pediatric and adult rare tumor network that aims to bolster patient involvement in research and develop effective therapies through tumor sample collection, shared data, shared samples, new methods to test treatments, and new trial designs. In 2022, MyPART welcomed NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition as an advocacy partner.

Meanwhile, advocacy organizations are giving rare cancer a rising voice. NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition unites rare cancer patient advocacy organizations and helps them drive progress together. The coalition promotes research and awareness through its annual Rare Cancer Day (September 30) campaign. Additionally, NORD has produced over 22 continuing medical education modules on rare cancers in collaboration with PlatformQ Health, providing updates on new therapies and treatment approaches. NORD also offers rare disease reports and educational videos on rare cancers, sessions inclusive of rare cancer topics at the annual NORD Summit, and a quarterly e-newsletter, “Caring for Rare” for healthcare professionals. Please visit us at rarediseases.org to access these resources.

Much work on rare cancers remains to be done, but the progress over recent years points to better outcomes moving forward. We are grateful for the work you do and your dedication to your patients, including those with rare cancers and other rare conditions. We hope you will find the information in this special issue useful for your clinical practice.

– Katie Kowalski, MPH
Associate Director of Education
National Organization for Rare Disorders

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

While people living with rare cancers continue to face daunting obstacles, progress is being made, and there are reasons to hope for a better future. Advances in genomic testing and precision medicine provide increasing evidence that rare cancers can be more efficiently and effectively diagnosed and treated. Genomic tests examine tumor DNA to identify mutations that are unique to an individual’s cancer. This genetic information enables a more precise diagnosis and targeted treatment approach. Jim Palma, Co-Lead of the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition, said “There is promise for rare cancer patients due to increased legislative efforts to cover the costs of genomic testing coupled by an increase in FDA approvals for targeted and tissue agnostic therapies.”

In 2019, the National Cancer Institute established MyPART, a vast pediatric and adult rare tumor network that aims to bolster patient involvement in research and develop effective therapies through tumor sample collection, shared data, shared samples, new methods to test treatments, and new trial designs. In 2022, MyPART welcomed NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition as an advocacy partner.

Meanwhile, advocacy organizations are giving rare cancer a rising voice. NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition unites rare cancer patient advocacy organizations and helps them drive progress together. The coalition promotes research and awareness through its annual Rare Cancer Day (September 30) campaign. Additionally, NORD has produced over 22 continuing medical education modules on rare cancers in collaboration with PlatformQ Health, providing updates on new therapies and treatment approaches. NORD also offers rare disease reports and educational videos on rare cancers, sessions inclusive of rare cancer topics at the annual NORD Summit, and a quarterly e-newsletter, “Caring for Rare” for healthcare professionals. Please visit us at rarediseases.org to access these resources.

Much work on rare cancers remains to be done, but the progress over recent years points to better outcomes moving forward. We are grateful for the work you do and your dedication to your patients, including those with rare cancers and other rare conditions. We hope you will find the information in this special issue useful for your clinical practice.

– Katie Kowalski, MPH
Associate Director of Education
National Organization for Rare Disorders

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

While people living with rare cancers continue to face daunting obstacles, progress is being made, and there are reasons to hope for a better future. Advances in genomic testing and precision medicine provide increasing evidence that rare cancers can be more efficiently and effectively diagnosed and treated. Genomic tests examine tumor DNA to identify mutations that are unique to an individual’s cancer. This genetic information enables a more precise diagnosis and targeted treatment approach. Jim Palma, Co-Lead of the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition, said “There is promise for rare cancer patients due to increased legislative efforts to cover the costs of genomic testing coupled by an increase in FDA approvals for targeted and tissue agnostic therapies.”

In 2019, the National Cancer Institute established MyPART, a vast pediatric and adult rare tumor network that aims to bolster patient involvement in research and develop effective therapies through tumor sample collection, shared data, shared samples, new methods to test treatments, and new trial designs. In 2022, MyPART welcomed NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition as an advocacy partner.

Meanwhile, advocacy organizations are giving rare cancer a rising voice. NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition unites rare cancer patient advocacy organizations and helps them drive progress together. The coalition promotes research and awareness through its annual Rare Cancer Day (September 30) campaign. Additionally, NORD has produced over 22 continuing medical education modules on rare cancers in collaboration with PlatformQ Health, providing updates on new therapies and treatment approaches. NORD also offers rare disease reports and educational videos on rare cancers, sessions inclusive of rare cancer topics at the annual NORD Summit, and a quarterly e-newsletter, “Caring for Rare” for healthcare professionals. Please visit us at rarediseases.org to access these resources.

Much work on rare cancers remains to be done, but the progress over recent years points to better outcomes moving forward. We are grateful for the work you do and your dedication to your patients, including those with rare cancers and other rare conditions. We hope you will find the information in this special issue useful for your clinical practice.

– Katie Kowalski, MPH
Associate Director of Education
National Organization for Rare Disorders

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

This edition of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers highlights the latest breakthroughs and remaining unmet needs in the management of rare cancers. In addition to celebrating the great progress that has been made in recent years, we also discuss new challenges, such as how the healthcare system can prepare to manage the growing number of rare cancer survivors who are living longer due to improvements in disease management. 

INTRODUCTION

NORD: Making Progress Through Collaboration
By Katie Kowalski, MPH

IN THIS ISSUE

The Complex Challenge of Survival After HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer
By Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD

Progress in Ovarian Cancer: Discovery of Fallopian Tube Involvement
By Ronny Drapkin, MD, PhD

An Evolving Understanding of Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Lung
By Rajwanth Veluswamy, MD, MSCR

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Reflecting on 2 Decades of Clinical Advancements
By Jason K. Sicklick, MD, FACS

Progress in Treating Testicular Cancer
By Liang Cheng, MD

Strategies to Improve Long-Term Outcomes in Younger Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma
By Ann LaCasce, MD, MMSc

Targeted Therapies in Younger and Older Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma
By Reem Karmali, MD, MS

Advances in Management of Relapsed/Refractory Hairy Cell Leukemia
By Robert J. Kreitman, MD

Treatment Needs of Older Adults With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia
By Harry Erba, MD, PhD

Progress in Management of Advanced Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia in Children
By Susan Colace, MD, MSCI

This edition of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers highlights the latest breakthroughs and remaining unmet needs in the management of rare cancers. In addition to celebrating the great progress that has been made in recent years, we also discuss new challenges, such as how the healthcare system can prepare to manage the growing number of rare cancer survivors who are living longer due to improvements in disease management. 

INTRODUCTION

NORD: Making Progress Through Collaboration
By Katie Kowalski, MPH

IN THIS ISSUE

The Complex Challenge of Survival After HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer
By Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD

Progress in Ovarian Cancer: Discovery of Fallopian Tube Involvement
By Ronny Drapkin, MD, PhD

An Evolving Understanding of Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Lung
By Rajwanth Veluswamy, MD, MSCR

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Reflecting on 2 Decades of Clinical Advancements
By Jason K. Sicklick, MD, FACS

Progress in Treating Testicular Cancer
By Liang Cheng, MD

Strategies to Improve Long-Term Outcomes in Younger Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma
By Ann LaCasce, MD, MMSc

Targeted Therapies in Younger and Older Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma
By Reem Karmali, MD, MS

Advances in Management of Relapsed/Refractory Hairy Cell Leukemia
By Robert J. Kreitman, MD

Treatment Needs of Older Adults With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia
By Harry Erba, MD, PhD

Progress in Management of Advanced Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia in Children
By Susan Colace, MD, MSCI

This edition of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers highlights the latest breakthroughs and remaining unmet needs in the management of rare cancers. In addition to celebrating the great progress that has been made in recent years, we also discuss new challenges, such as how the healthcare system can prepare to manage the growing number of rare cancer survivors who are living longer due to improvements in disease management. 

INTRODUCTION

NORD: Making Progress Through Collaboration
By Katie Kowalski, MPH

IN THIS ISSUE

The Complex Challenge of Survival After HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer
By Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD

Progress in Ovarian Cancer: Discovery of Fallopian Tube Involvement
By Ronny Drapkin, MD, PhD

An Evolving Understanding of Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Lung
By Rajwanth Veluswamy, MD, MSCR

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Reflecting on 2 Decades of Clinical Advancements
By Jason K. Sicklick, MD, FACS

Progress in Treating Testicular Cancer
By Liang Cheng, MD

Strategies to Improve Long-Term Outcomes in Younger Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma
By Ann LaCasce, MD, MMSc

Targeted Therapies in Younger and Older Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma
By Reem Karmali, MD, MS

Advances in Management of Relapsed/Refractory Hairy Cell Leukemia
By Robert J. Kreitman, MD

Treatment Needs of Older Adults With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia
By Harry Erba, MD, PhD

Progress in Management of Advanced Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia in Children
By Susan Colace, MD, MSCI

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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