Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water. 

The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”

“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”

Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”

“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.” 

Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). 

A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years. 

“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”

The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28. 

The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules. 

If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water. 

The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”

“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”

Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”

“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.” 

Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). 

A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years. 

“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”

The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28. 

The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules. 

If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water. 

The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”

“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”

Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”

“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.” 

Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). 

A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years. 

“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”

The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28. 

The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules. 

If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.

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

It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.

Her patient had taken his last prescription antinausea pill. Without a refill of ondansetron, he faced a long, painful weekend.

The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.

He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.

“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.

But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.

The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.

After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.

But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.

At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.

“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.

On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.

“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”

When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.

At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.

Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.

Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.

In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.

On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”

However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.

“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”

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

It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.

Her patient had taken his last prescription antinausea pill. Without a refill of ondansetron, he faced a long, painful weekend.

The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.

He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.

“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.

But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.

The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.

After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.

But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.

At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.

“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.

On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.

“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”

When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.

At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.

Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.

Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.

In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.

On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”

However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.

“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”

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

It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.

Her patient had taken his last prescription antinausea pill. Without a refill of ondansetron, he faced a long, painful weekend.

The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.

He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.

“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.

But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.

The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.

After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.

But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.

At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.

“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.

On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.

“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”

When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.

At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.

Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.

Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.

In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.

On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”

However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.

“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”

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

For patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who cannot tolerate platinum chemotherapy, docetaxel is a sound alternative to enhance sensitivity to radiotherapy, say researchers reporting a phase 3 trial from India.

“This is the first randomized study demonstrating the benefit of an alternate radiosensitizing agent in cisplatin-ineligible patients,” they wrote.

“We found that the use of docetaxel as a radiosensitizer in cisplatin-ineligible patients,” compared with the use of radiation alone, “led to an improvement in disease-free survival, locoregional control, and overall survival without affecting the quality of life of the patients,” the team reported.

The investigators, led by Vijay Maruti Patil, MD, DM, a medical oncologist at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, noted that they stopped the trial early after the benefit from adding docetaxel became clear.

Cisplatin is the general standard of care to sensitize locally advanced head and neck tumors to radiation treatment, but up to a third of patients are ineligible because of age, diminished kidney function, hearing loss, and other problems, they wrote.

Many alternatives to cisplatin are used in such settings, but until now, there hasn’t been any level 1, phase 3 evidence to guide the selection.

Cetuximab is the alternative used most often in the United States, but evidence supporting it was generated in trials involving cisplatin-eligible patients, the investigators pointed out. There is also a high incidence of skin and other toxicities and, in some studies, nonideal survival outcomes, they noted.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It “demonstrates what could be presumed but was not known to be true in the cisplatin-ineligible context: Radiosensitizers improve outcomes over radiotherapy alone,” commented the authors of an accompanying editorial (J Clin Oncol. 2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02350).

“Docetaxel belongs in the armamentarium of go-to regimens,” wrote radiation oncologist Loren Mell, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and medical oncologist Stuart Wong, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

This study “fills an important gap in the head and neck cancer literature, but “since [docetaxel] was not compared head-to-head against” other radiosensitizing alternatives, it “should not be declared the lone standard. ... It is high time to shift the conversation from whether radiosensitizers are beneficial to which regimen (if any) provides the most benefit and should define the standard of care,” they added.

The trial randomly assigned 356 cisplatin-ineligible adults equally to either radiation alone or radiation with concurrent docetaxel 15 mg/m2 once weekly for a maximum of seven cycles. The investigators planned to enroll 600 patients but stopped the trial early when the survival benefit with docetaxel became clear.

The addition of docetaxel improved 2-year disease-free survival (42% vs. 30.3%; hazard ratio, 0.673; P = .002); 2-year overall survival (50.8% vs. 41.7%; HR, 0.747; P = .035), and the 2-year locoregional failure rate (41.8% vs. 54.7%; HR, 0.661; P = .002).

Median overall survival was 25.5 months with docetaxel versus 15.3 months with radiation alone (P = .035).

Docetaxel’s benefits were most pronounced in patients with hypopharyngeal primary sites and among the 61% of patients treated definitively. There was “possibly” a benefit in the adjuvant setting, but “further study would be required to show definitive applicability,” the investigators said.

There was a higher incidence of grade 3 or greater mucositis (49.7% vs. 22.2%), odynophagia (52.5% vs. 33.5%), and dysphagia (33%), but the “complications were manageable and did not affect the compliance” with either radiation or docetaxel, the team reported. Overall, 86% of patients received five or more cycles docetaxel.

In their editorial, Dr. Mell and Dr. Wong noted that the “majority of patients did not receive intensity-modulated radiotherapy, the standard in higher-income countries,” but added that “we do not expect the use of conventional radiotherapy would reduce the effectiveness of docetaxel.”

The trial was funded by Tata Memorial Hospital, where it was conducted. Several investigators had industry ties, including Dr. Patil, who reported research funding from Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, AstraZeneca, Intas, NATCO Pharma, Eisai Germany, and Novartis. Dr. Mell is an advisor for Cel-Sci and reported research funding from Merck and AstraZeneca. Dr. Wong disclosed research funding from Novartis and Merck.

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

For patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who cannot tolerate platinum chemotherapy, docetaxel is a sound alternative to enhance sensitivity to radiotherapy, say researchers reporting a phase 3 trial from India.

“This is the first randomized study demonstrating the benefit of an alternate radiosensitizing agent in cisplatin-ineligible patients,” they wrote.

“We found that the use of docetaxel as a radiosensitizer in cisplatin-ineligible patients,” compared with the use of radiation alone, “led to an improvement in disease-free survival, locoregional control, and overall survival without affecting the quality of life of the patients,” the team reported.

The investigators, led by Vijay Maruti Patil, MD, DM, a medical oncologist at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, noted that they stopped the trial early after the benefit from adding docetaxel became clear.

Cisplatin is the general standard of care to sensitize locally advanced head and neck tumors to radiation treatment, but up to a third of patients are ineligible because of age, diminished kidney function, hearing loss, and other problems, they wrote.

Many alternatives to cisplatin are used in such settings, but until now, there hasn’t been any level 1, phase 3 evidence to guide the selection.

Cetuximab is the alternative used most often in the United States, but evidence supporting it was generated in trials involving cisplatin-eligible patients, the investigators pointed out. There is also a high incidence of skin and other toxicities and, in some studies, nonideal survival outcomes, they noted.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It “demonstrates what could be presumed but was not known to be true in the cisplatin-ineligible context: Radiosensitizers improve outcomes over radiotherapy alone,” commented the authors of an accompanying editorial (J Clin Oncol. 2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02350).

“Docetaxel belongs in the armamentarium of go-to regimens,” wrote radiation oncologist Loren Mell, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and medical oncologist Stuart Wong, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

This study “fills an important gap in the head and neck cancer literature, but “since [docetaxel] was not compared head-to-head against” other radiosensitizing alternatives, it “should not be declared the lone standard. ... It is high time to shift the conversation from whether radiosensitizers are beneficial to which regimen (if any) provides the most benefit and should define the standard of care,” they added.

The trial randomly assigned 356 cisplatin-ineligible adults equally to either radiation alone or radiation with concurrent docetaxel 15 mg/m2 once weekly for a maximum of seven cycles. The investigators planned to enroll 600 patients but stopped the trial early when the survival benefit with docetaxel became clear.

The addition of docetaxel improved 2-year disease-free survival (42% vs. 30.3%; hazard ratio, 0.673; P = .002); 2-year overall survival (50.8% vs. 41.7%; HR, 0.747; P = .035), and the 2-year locoregional failure rate (41.8% vs. 54.7%; HR, 0.661; P = .002).

Median overall survival was 25.5 months with docetaxel versus 15.3 months with radiation alone (P = .035).

Docetaxel’s benefits were most pronounced in patients with hypopharyngeal primary sites and among the 61% of patients treated definitively. There was “possibly” a benefit in the adjuvant setting, but “further study would be required to show definitive applicability,” the investigators said.

There was a higher incidence of grade 3 or greater mucositis (49.7% vs. 22.2%), odynophagia (52.5% vs. 33.5%), and dysphagia (33%), but the “complications were manageable and did not affect the compliance” with either radiation or docetaxel, the team reported. Overall, 86% of patients received five or more cycles docetaxel.

In their editorial, Dr. Mell and Dr. Wong noted that the “majority of patients did not receive intensity-modulated radiotherapy, the standard in higher-income countries,” but added that “we do not expect the use of conventional radiotherapy would reduce the effectiveness of docetaxel.”

The trial was funded by Tata Memorial Hospital, where it was conducted. Several investigators had industry ties, including Dr. Patil, who reported research funding from Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, AstraZeneca, Intas, NATCO Pharma, Eisai Germany, and Novartis. Dr. Mell is an advisor for Cel-Sci and reported research funding from Merck and AstraZeneca. Dr. Wong disclosed research funding from Novartis and Merck.

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

For patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who cannot tolerate platinum chemotherapy, docetaxel is a sound alternative to enhance sensitivity to radiotherapy, say researchers reporting a phase 3 trial from India.

“This is the first randomized study demonstrating the benefit of an alternate radiosensitizing agent in cisplatin-ineligible patients,” they wrote.

“We found that the use of docetaxel as a radiosensitizer in cisplatin-ineligible patients,” compared with the use of radiation alone, “led to an improvement in disease-free survival, locoregional control, and overall survival without affecting the quality of life of the patients,” the team reported.

The investigators, led by Vijay Maruti Patil, MD, DM, a medical oncologist at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, noted that they stopped the trial early after the benefit from adding docetaxel became clear.

Cisplatin is the general standard of care to sensitize locally advanced head and neck tumors to radiation treatment, but up to a third of patients are ineligible because of age, diminished kidney function, hearing loss, and other problems, they wrote.

Many alternatives to cisplatin are used in such settings, but until now, there hasn’t been any level 1, phase 3 evidence to guide the selection.

Cetuximab is the alternative used most often in the United States, but evidence supporting it was generated in trials involving cisplatin-eligible patients, the investigators pointed out. There is also a high incidence of skin and other toxicities and, in some studies, nonideal survival outcomes, they noted.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It “demonstrates what could be presumed but was not known to be true in the cisplatin-ineligible context: Radiosensitizers improve outcomes over radiotherapy alone,” commented the authors of an accompanying editorial (J Clin Oncol. 2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02350).

“Docetaxel belongs in the armamentarium of go-to regimens,” wrote radiation oncologist Loren Mell, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and medical oncologist Stuart Wong, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

This study “fills an important gap in the head and neck cancer literature, but “since [docetaxel] was not compared head-to-head against” other radiosensitizing alternatives, it “should not be declared the lone standard. ... It is high time to shift the conversation from whether radiosensitizers are beneficial to which regimen (if any) provides the most benefit and should define the standard of care,” they added.

The trial randomly assigned 356 cisplatin-ineligible adults equally to either radiation alone or radiation with concurrent docetaxel 15 mg/m2 once weekly for a maximum of seven cycles. The investigators planned to enroll 600 patients but stopped the trial early when the survival benefit with docetaxel became clear.

The addition of docetaxel improved 2-year disease-free survival (42% vs. 30.3%; hazard ratio, 0.673; P = .002); 2-year overall survival (50.8% vs. 41.7%; HR, 0.747; P = .035), and the 2-year locoregional failure rate (41.8% vs. 54.7%; HR, 0.661; P = .002).

Median overall survival was 25.5 months with docetaxel versus 15.3 months with radiation alone (P = .035).

Docetaxel’s benefits were most pronounced in patients with hypopharyngeal primary sites and among the 61% of patients treated definitively. There was “possibly” a benefit in the adjuvant setting, but “further study would be required to show definitive applicability,” the investigators said.

There was a higher incidence of grade 3 or greater mucositis (49.7% vs. 22.2%), odynophagia (52.5% vs. 33.5%), and dysphagia (33%), but the “complications were manageable and did not affect the compliance” with either radiation or docetaxel, the team reported. Overall, 86% of patients received five or more cycles docetaxel.

In their editorial, Dr. Mell and Dr. Wong noted that the “majority of patients did not receive intensity-modulated radiotherapy, the standard in higher-income countries,” but added that “we do not expect the use of conventional radiotherapy would reduce the effectiveness of docetaxel.”

The trial was funded by Tata Memorial Hospital, where it was conducted. Several investigators had industry ties, including Dr. Patil, who reported research funding from Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, AstraZeneca, Intas, NATCO Pharma, Eisai Germany, and Novartis. Dr. Mell is an advisor for Cel-Sci and reported research funding from Merck and AstraZeneca. Dr. Wong disclosed research funding from Novartis and Merck.

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

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientists have made big strides in the fight against cancer. A person’s risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. fell by 27% in the past 2 decades, thanks in large part to researchers who continue to uncover the complex details of how cancer works and to make advances in treatment. 

Now the emerging technology of 3D bioprinting – like 3D printing for the human body, using actual human cells – promises to speed up research by enabling scientists to develop 3D tumor models that better represent samples from patients.   

The impact could be “huge,” says Y. Shrike Zhang, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, who studies 3D bioprinting. “It is not the only technology that may allow modeling of tumors in vitro, but it certainly is one of the most capable.” 

Why does that matter? Because the 2D cell cultures that scientists often use now may not capture all the complexities of how cancer grows, spreads, and responds to treatment. It’s one reason why so few potential new cancer drugs – 3.4%, according to one estimate – can pass all clinical trials. Results may not carry over from the culture dish to the patient. 

Researchers say these 3D-printed blood vessels may treat certain dangerous health problems that affect your veins, arteries, or capillaries.

A 3D-bioprinted model, on the other hand, may be better at copying a tumor’s “microenvironment” – all the parts (cells, molecules, blood vessels) that surround a tumor. 

“The tumor microenvironment plays an integral role in defining how cancer progresses,” says Madhuri Dey, a PhD candidate and researcher at Penn State University. “In vitro 3D models are an attempt at reconstituting a [cancer] microenvironment, which sheds light on how tumors respond to chemo or immunotherapeutic treatments when they are present in a native-like microenvironment.”

Ms. Dey is the lead author of a study funded by the National Science Foundation in which breast cancer tumors were 3D-bioprinted and successfully treated. Unlike some previous 3D models of cancer cells, this model did a better job of imitating that microenvironment, she explains. 

So far, “3D bioprinting of cancer models has been limited to bioprinting of individual cancer cells laden in hydrogels,” she says. But she and her colleagues developed a technique called aspiration-assisted bioprinting that lets them control where blood vessels are located relative to the tumor. “This model lays the foundation for studying these nuances of cancer,” Ms. Dey says. 

“This is a quite cool work,” Dr. Zhang says of the Penn State study (which he was not involved in). “Vascularization is always a key component in [a] majority of the tumor types.” A model that incorporates blood vessels provides a “critical niche” to help tumor models reach their full potential in cancer research. 
 

A 3D printer for your body

Chances are you’ve heard of 3D printing and may even own (or know someone who owns) a 3D printer. The concept is like regular printing, but instead of spewing ink onto paper, a 3D printer releases layers of plastic or other materials, hundreds or thousands of times, to build an object from the ground up. 

Three-dimensional bioprinting works much the same way, except those layers are made of living cells to create biological structures like skin, vessels, organs, or bone. 

Bioprinting has been around since 1988. So far, it’s mainly used in research settings, such as in the field of regenerative medicine. Research is underway for ear reconstruction, nerve regeneration, and skin regeneration. The technology was also recently used to create eye tissue to help researchers study eye diseases. 

The technology’s potential for use in cancer research has yet to be fully realized, Ms. Dey says. But that may be changing. 

“The use of 3D-bioprinted tumor models is getting close to translations in cancer research,” says Dr. Zhang. “They are being increasingly adopted by the research field, and [the technology] has started to be explored by the pharma industry for use towards cancer drug development.” 

Because bioprinting can be automated, it could allow researchers to create high-quality, complex tumor models at scale, Dr. Zhang says.

Such 3D models also have the potential to replace or reduce the use of animals in tumor drug testing, Ms. Dey notes. They “are expected to provide a more accurate drug response, compared [with] animal models, as animal physiology does not match humans’.” 

The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a new U.S. law eliminating the requirement that drugs be tested in animals before humans, has “further paved the way for such technologies in the drug development pipeline,” Dr. Zhang says.
 

What if we could build a custom tumor model for each patient? 

Possible uses for bioprinting go beyond the lab, Ms. Dey says. Imagine if we could customize 3D tumor models based on biopsies from individual patients. Doctors could test many treatments on these patient-specific models, letting them more accurately predict how each patient would respond to different therapies. This would help doctors decide which course of treatment is best. 

In Ms. Dey’s study, the 3D model was treated with chemotherapy and with immunotherapy, and it responded to both. This highlights the potential for such 3D models to reveal the body’s immune response and be used to screen therapies, she says. “We hope is that in the future, this technique can be adapted in the hospital, which would speed up the course of cancer treatment.”

To that end, she and her colleagues are now working with real breast cancer tumors removed from patients, re-creating them in the lab in 3D to use for chemo and immunotherapy screening.

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

Scientists have made big strides in the fight against cancer. A person’s risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. fell by 27% in the past 2 decades, thanks in large part to researchers who continue to uncover the complex details of how cancer works and to make advances in treatment. 

Now the emerging technology of 3D bioprinting – like 3D printing for the human body, using actual human cells – promises to speed up research by enabling scientists to develop 3D tumor models that better represent samples from patients.   

The impact could be “huge,” says Y. Shrike Zhang, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, who studies 3D bioprinting. “It is not the only technology that may allow modeling of tumors in vitro, but it certainly is one of the most capable.” 

Why does that matter? Because the 2D cell cultures that scientists often use now may not capture all the complexities of how cancer grows, spreads, and responds to treatment. It’s one reason why so few potential new cancer drugs – 3.4%, according to one estimate – can pass all clinical trials. Results may not carry over from the culture dish to the patient. 

Researchers say these 3D-printed blood vessels may treat certain dangerous health problems that affect your veins, arteries, or capillaries.

A 3D-bioprinted model, on the other hand, may be better at copying a tumor’s “microenvironment” – all the parts (cells, molecules, blood vessels) that surround a tumor. 

“The tumor microenvironment plays an integral role in defining how cancer progresses,” says Madhuri Dey, a PhD candidate and researcher at Penn State University. “In vitro 3D models are an attempt at reconstituting a [cancer] microenvironment, which sheds light on how tumors respond to chemo or immunotherapeutic treatments when they are present in a native-like microenvironment.”

Ms. Dey is the lead author of a study funded by the National Science Foundation in which breast cancer tumors were 3D-bioprinted and successfully treated. Unlike some previous 3D models of cancer cells, this model did a better job of imitating that microenvironment, she explains. 

So far, “3D bioprinting of cancer models has been limited to bioprinting of individual cancer cells laden in hydrogels,” she says. But she and her colleagues developed a technique called aspiration-assisted bioprinting that lets them control where blood vessels are located relative to the tumor. “This model lays the foundation for studying these nuances of cancer,” Ms. Dey says. 

“This is a quite cool work,” Dr. Zhang says of the Penn State study (which he was not involved in). “Vascularization is always a key component in [a] majority of the tumor types.” A model that incorporates blood vessels provides a “critical niche” to help tumor models reach their full potential in cancer research. 
 

A 3D printer for your body

Chances are you’ve heard of 3D printing and may even own (or know someone who owns) a 3D printer. The concept is like regular printing, but instead of spewing ink onto paper, a 3D printer releases layers of plastic or other materials, hundreds or thousands of times, to build an object from the ground up. 

Three-dimensional bioprinting works much the same way, except those layers are made of living cells to create biological structures like skin, vessels, organs, or bone. 

Bioprinting has been around since 1988. So far, it’s mainly used in research settings, such as in the field of regenerative medicine. Research is underway for ear reconstruction, nerve regeneration, and skin regeneration. The technology was also recently used to create eye tissue to help researchers study eye diseases. 

The technology’s potential for use in cancer research has yet to be fully realized, Ms. Dey says. But that may be changing. 

“The use of 3D-bioprinted tumor models is getting close to translations in cancer research,” says Dr. Zhang. “They are being increasingly adopted by the research field, and [the technology] has started to be explored by the pharma industry for use towards cancer drug development.” 

Because bioprinting can be automated, it could allow researchers to create high-quality, complex tumor models at scale, Dr. Zhang says.

Such 3D models also have the potential to replace or reduce the use of animals in tumor drug testing, Ms. Dey notes. They “are expected to provide a more accurate drug response, compared [with] animal models, as animal physiology does not match humans’.” 

The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a new U.S. law eliminating the requirement that drugs be tested in animals before humans, has “further paved the way for such technologies in the drug development pipeline,” Dr. Zhang says.
 

What if we could build a custom tumor model for each patient? 

Possible uses for bioprinting go beyond the lab, Ms. Dey says. Imagine if we could customize 3D tumor models based on biopsies from individual patients. Doctors could test many treatments on these patient-specific models, letting them more accurately predict how each patient would respond to different therapies. This would help doctors decide which course of treatment is best. 

In Ms. Dey’s study, the 3D model was treated with chemotherapy and with immunotherapy, and it responded to both. This highlights the potential for such 3D models to reveal the body’s immune response and be used to screen therapies, she says. “We hope is that in the future, this technique can be adapted in the hospital, which would speed up the course of cancer treatment.”

To that end, she and her colleagues are now working with real breast cancer tumors removed from patients, re-creating them in the lab in 3D to use for chemo and immunotherapy screening.

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

Scientists have made big strides in the fight against cancer. A person’s risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. fell by 27% in the past 2 decades, thanks in large part to researchers who continue to uncover the complex details of how cancer works and to make advances in treatment. 

Now the emerging technology of 3D bioprinting – like 3D printing for the human body, using actual human cells – promises to speed up research by enabling scientists to develop 3D tumor models that better represent samples from patients.   

The impact could be “huge,” says Y. Shrike Zhang, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, who studies 3D bioprinting. “It is not the only technology that may allow modeling of tumors in vitro, but it certainly is one of the most capable.” 

Why does that matter? Because the 2D cell cultures that scientists often use now may not capture all the complexities of how cancer grows, spreads, and responds to treatment. It’s one reason why so few potential new cancer drugs – 3.4%, according to one estimate – can pass all clinical trials. Results may not carry over from the culture dish to the patient. 

Researchers say these 3D-printed blood vessels may treat certain dangerous health problems that affect your veins, arteries, or capillaries.

A 3D-bioprinted model, on the other hand, may be better at copying a tumor’s “microenvironment” – all the parts (cells, molecules, blood vessels) that surround a tumor. 

“The tumor microenvironment plays an integral role in defining how cancer progresses,” says Madhuri Dey, a PhD candidate and researcher at Penn State University. “In vitro 3D models are an attempt at reconstituting a [cancer] microenvironment, which sheds light on how tumors respond to chemo or immunotherapeutic treatments when they are present in a native-like microenvironment.”

Ms. Dey is the lead author of a study funded by the National Science Foundation in which breast cancer tumors were 3D-bioprinted and successfully treated. Unlike some previous 3D models of cancer cells, this model did a better job of imitating that microenvironment, she explains. 

So far, “3D bioprinting of cancer models has been limited to bioprinting of individual cancer cells laden in hydrogels,” she says. But she and her colleagues developed a technique called aspiration-assisted bioprinting that lets them control where blood vessels are located relative to the tumor. “This model lays the foundation for studying these nuances of cancer,” Ms. Dey says. 

“This is a quite cool work,” Dr. Zhang says of the Penn State study (which he was not involved in). “Vascularization is always a key component in [a] majority of the tumor types.” A model that incorporates blood vessels provides a “critical niche” to help tumor models reach their full potential in cancer research. 
 

A 3D printer for your body

Chances are you’ve heard of 3D printing and may even own (or know someone who owns) a 3D printer. The concept is like regular printing, but instead of spewing ink onto paper, a 3D printer releases layers of plastic or other materials, hundreds or thousands of times, to build an object from the ground up. 

Three-dimensional bioprinting works much the same way, except those layers are made of living cells to create biological structures like skin, vessels, organs, or bone. 

Bioprinting has been around since 1988. So far, it’s mainly used in research settings, such as in the field of regenerative medicine. Research is underway for ear reconstruction, nerve regeneration, and skin regeneration. The technology was also recently used to create eye tissue to help researchers study eye diseases. 

The technology’s potential for use in cancer research has yet to be fully realized, Ms. Dey says. But that may be changing. 

“The use of 3D-bioprinted tumor models is getting close to translations in cancer research,” says Dr. Zhang. “They are being increasingly adopted by the research field, and [the technology] has started to be explored by the pharma industry for use towards cancer drug development.” 

Because bioprinting can be automated, it could allow researchers to create high-quality, complex tumor models at scale, Dr. Zhang says.

Such 3D models also have the potential to replace or reduce the use of animals in tumor drug testing, Ms. Dey notes. They “are expected to provide a more accurate drug response, compared [with] animal models, as animal physiology does not match humans’.” 

The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a new U.S. law eliminating the requirement that drugs be tested in animals before humans, has “further paved the way for such technologies in the drug development pipeline,” Dr. Zhang says.
 

What if we could build a custom tumor model for each patient? 

Possible uses for bioprinting go beyond the lab, Ms. Dey says. Imagine if we could customize 3D tumor models based on biopsies from individual patients. Doctors could test many treatments on these patient-specific models, letting them more accurately predict how each patient would respond to different therapies. This would help doctors decide which course of treatment is best. 

In Ms. Dey’s study, the 3D model was treated with chemotherapy and with immunotherapy, and it responded to both. This highlights the potential for such 3D models to reveal the body’s immune response and be used to screen therapies, she says. “We hope is that in the future, this technique can be adapted in the hospital, which would speed up the course of cancer treatment.”

To that end, she and her colleagues are now working with real breast cancer tumors removed from patients, re-creating them in the lab in 3D to use for chemo and immunotherapy screening.

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

Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.” 

Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.

But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.

And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her. 

Drug-supplement interactions are complex, often varying by supplement, cancer, and treatment type, and can do more harm than good. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said. 

These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.

Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
 

The complex drug-supplement landscape

The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced. 

But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents. 

Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then  affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.

Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels. 

Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.  Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.

Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting. 

Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label. 

One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.

To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.

Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels. 

Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team. 
 

Bringing supplement use into the light

Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use. 

A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health. 

That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.

Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.

“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao. 

The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.

Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said. 

Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained  medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society. 

Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful. 

Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.” 

Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized. 

“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.

Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted. 

If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said  Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why. 

“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said. 

Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem? 

“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.

And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?

“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said  Dr. Mao. 

Instead, he recommends reframing the issue. 

“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said. 

The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said. 

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

Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.” 

Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.

But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.

And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her. 

Drug-supplement interactions are complex, often varying by supplement, cancer, and treatment type, and can do more harm than good. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said. 

These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.

Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
 

The complex drug-supplement landscape

The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced. 

But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents. 

Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then  affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.

Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels. 

Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.  Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.

Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting. 

Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label. 

One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.

To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.

Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels. 

Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team. 
 

Bringing supplement use into the light

Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use. 

A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health. 

That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.

Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.

“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao. 

The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.

Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said. 

Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained  medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society. 

Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful. 

Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.” 

Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized. 

“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.

Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted. 

If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said  Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why. 

“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said. 

Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem? 

“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.

And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?

“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said  Dr. Mao. 

Instead, he recommends reframing the issue. 

“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said. 

The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said. 

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

Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.” 

Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.

But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.

And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her. 

Drug-supplement interactions are complex, often varying by supplement, cancer, and treatment type, and can do more harm than good. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said. 

These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.

Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
 

The complex drug-supplement landscape

The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced. 

But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents. 

Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then  affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.

Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels. 

Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.  Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.

Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting. 

Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label. 

One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.

To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.

Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels. 

Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team. 
 

Bringing supplement use into the light

Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use. 

A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health. 

That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.

Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.

“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao. 

The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.

Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said. 

Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained  medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society. 

Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful. 

Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.” 

Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized. 

“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.

Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted. 

If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said  Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why. 

“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said. 

Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem? 

“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.

And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?

“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said  Dr. Mao. 

Instead, he recommends reframing the issue. 

“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said. 

The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said. 

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

I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.

Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.

There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
 

When should a patient be referred to palliative care?

Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.

For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.

But don’t get me wrong. I’m not discouraging referrals to palliative care, instead I’m suggesting the careful triage of patients.
 

Palliative care for all?

In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.

The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.

This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.

In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.

Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
 

When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?

I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.

A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.

At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.

Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.

There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
 

When should a patient be referred to palliative care?

Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.

For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.

But don’t get me wrong. I’m not discouraging referrals to palliative care, instead I’m suggesting the careful triage of patients.
 

Palliative care for all?

In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.

The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.

This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.

In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.

Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
 

When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?

I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.

A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.

At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.

Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.

There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
 

When should a patient be referred to palliative care?

Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.

For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.

But don’t get me wrong. I’m not discouraging referrals to palliative care, instead I’m suggesting the careful triage of patients.
 

Palliative care for all?

In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.

The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.

This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.

In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.

Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
 

When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?

I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.

A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.

At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.

These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.

For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.

In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.

Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.

Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
 

Clinical trials underway

There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.

In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).

Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.

The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.

“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”

But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
 

Demand may burden health systems

Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.

“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”

There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.

Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.

“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.

Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.

The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
 

Planning and prep in Boston

In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.

“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”

Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.

“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.

“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
 

Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care

With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.

There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
 

The first positive test result

Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.

All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”

There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”

Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”

Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.

Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.

These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.

For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.

In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.

Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.

Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
 

Clinical trials underway

There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.

In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).

Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.

The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.

“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”

But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
 

Demand may burden health systems

Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.

“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”

There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.

Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.

“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.

Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.

The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
 

Planning and prep in Boston

In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.

“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”

Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.

“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.

“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
 

Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care

With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.

There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
 

The first positive test result

Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.

All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”

There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”

Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”

Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.

Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.

These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.

For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.

In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.

Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.

Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
 

Clinical trials underway

There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.

In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).

Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.

The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.

“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”

But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
 

Demand may burden health systems

Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.

“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”

There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.

Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.

“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.

Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.

The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
 

Planning and prep in Boston

In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.

“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”

Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.

“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.

“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
 

Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care

With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.

There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
 

The first positive test result

Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.

All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”

There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”

Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”

Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.

A healthier lifestyle mitigated the impact of genetic factors on the risk of thyroid cancer, in a study based on data from more than 260,000 individuals.

Thyroid cancer has increased globally in recent years and ranks 9th among 36 cancers worldwide, at a considerable cost to health care systems, wrote Xiuming Feng of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China, and colleagues.

SciePro/Science Source

Both genetic and lifestyle factors are related to thyroid cancer; previous research suggests a heritability of about 50%, but data on the impact of modifiable lifestyle factors on thyroid cancer are limited, the researchers said.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers used data from the UK Biobank and recruited adults aged 40-69 years during March 2006–October 2010. The final study population included 264,956 individuals of European descent. The median age of the participants was 57 years, and 52% were women.

Data on lifestyle behaviors were collected using interviews and questionnaires. The researchers constructed a total lifestyle score based on five variables: diet, physical activity, weight, smoking, and alcohol consumption. Each variable was assigned a score of 0 or 1, with 1 being favorable lifestyle behavior. Lifestyle was divided into three categories: unfavorable (scores 0-1), intermediate (score 2), and favorable (scores 3-5).

Each individual’s polygenic risk score (PRS) was categorized as low, intermediate, or high based on a meta–genome-wide association study of three cohorts.

The main outcome was the development of thyroid cancer.

The researchers identified 423 incident thyroid cancer cases over a median follow-up of 11.1 years.

Overall, higher PRSs were significantly associated with thyroid cancer (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-2.64; P < .00001) as was an unfavorable lifestyle score (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.50-2.49; P < .001 for trend).

An unfavorable lifestyle was significantly associated with thyroid cancer in the highest PRS group, and individuals with high PRS and unfavorable lifestyle had a nearly fivefold increased risk of thyroid cancer (HR, 4.89; 95% CI, 3.03-7.91; P < .001). By extension, “Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the incidence of thyroid cancer in individuals with a higher PRS,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the availability of only baseline lifestyle data, and lack of data on iodine intake, radiation exposure, experience, and family history, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the potential lack of generalizability to populations other than the individuals of European descent in the current study, they said.

However, the study is the first known to address the association among lifestyle, genetic factors, and risk of thyroid cancer, and was strengthened by the large study population, and the results suggest that lifestyle interventions may help reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with a genetic predisposition, they concluded.

Healthy living can make a difference

The incidence of thyroid cancer has increased annually, and exploring the possible risk factors could prevent the occurrence of thyroid cancer, corresponding author Xiaobo Yang, PhD, said in an interview.

Previous studies have reported that thyroid cancer is related to genetics and lifestyle, said Dr. Yang. “However, whether healthy lifestyle was associated with thyroid cancer risk and could attenuate the impact of genetic variants on thyroid cancer remains equivocal; therefore, it is crucial to determine the associations between genetic and lifestyle with thyroid cancer,” he said.

“To our surprise, we found that adherence to healthier lifestyle also could reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with high genetic predispositions,” said Dr. Yang. “The findings highlight the potential role of lifestyle interventions on thyroid cancer, especially in those with high genetic risk, because the heritability of thyroid cancer was very high, approximately 50%,” he said. “More attention should be paid to the role of healthier lifestyle in the prevention of cancer,” he added.

“Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the risk of thyroid cancer, which is the important message for clinicians,” said Dr. Yang. “It is not too soon to comment on implications for clinical practice, because many studies have maintained the consistent comment that healthier lifestyle could prevent the occurrence of cancer,” he said.

The relationship between sex-specific lifestyle factors such as smoking and alcohol use and thyroid cancer remains uncertain, and more research is needed to validate these associations, Dr. Yang said. More research also is needed to confirm the complex mechanism between lifestyle and genetics in thyroid cancer, he added.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A healthier lifestyle mitigated the impact of genetic factors on the risk of thyroid cancer, in a study based on data from more than 260,000 individuals.

Thyroid cancer has increased globally in recent years and ranks 9th among 36 cancers worldwide, at a considerable cost to health care systems, wrote Xiuming Feng of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China, and colleagues.

SciePro/Science Source

Both genetic and lifestyle factors are related to thyroid cancer; previous research suggests a heritability of about 50%, but data on the impact of modifiable lifestyle factors on thyroid cancer are limited, the researchers said.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers used data from the UK Biobank and recruited adults aged 40-69 years during March 2006–October 2010. The final study population included 264,956 individuals of European descent. The median age of the participants was 57 years, and 52% were women.

Data on lifestyle behaviors were collected using interviews and questionnaires. The researchers constructed a total lifestyle score based on five variables: diet, physical activity, weight, smoking, and alcohol consumption. Each variable was assigned a score of 0 or 1, with 1 being favorable lifestyle behavior. Lifestyle was divided into three categories: unfavorable (scores 0-1), intermediate (score 2), and favorable (scores 3-5).

Each individual’s polygenic risk score (PRS) was categorized as low, intermediate, or high based on a meta–genome-wide association study of three cohorts.

The main outcome was the development of thyroid cancer.

The researchers identified 423 incident thyroid cancer cases over a median follow-up of 11.1 years.

Overall, higher PRSs were significantly associated with thyroid cancer (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-2.64; P < .00001) as was an unfavorable lifestyle score (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.50-2.49; P < .001 for trend).

An unfavorable lifestyle was significantly associated with thyroid cancer in the highest PRS group, and individuals with high PRS and unfavorable lifestyle had a nearly fivefold increased risk of thyroid cancer (HR, 4.89; 95% CI, 3.03-7.91; P < .001). By extension, “Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the incidence of thyroid cancer in individuals with a higher PRS,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the availability of only baseline lifestyle data, and lack of data on iodine intake, radiation exposure, experience, and family history, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the potential lack of generalizability to populations other than the individuals of European descent in the current study, they said.

However, the study is the first known to address the association among lifestyle, genetic factors, and risk of thyroid cancer, and was strengthened by the large study population, and the results suggest that lifestyle interventions may help reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with a genetic predisposition, they concluded.

Healthy living can make a difference

The incidence of thyroid cancer has increased annually, and exploring the possible risk factors could prevent the occurrence of thyroid cancer, corresponding author Xiaobo Yang, PhD, said in an interview.

Previous studies have reported that thyroid cancer is related to genetics and lifestyle, said Dr. Yang. “However, whether healthy lifestyle was associated with thyroid cancer risk and could attenuate the impact of genetic variants on thyroid cancer remains equivocal; therefore, it is crucial to determine the associations between genetic and lifestyle with thyroid cancer,” he said.

“To our surprise, we found that adherence to healthier lifestyle also could reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with high genetic predispositions,” said Dr. Yang. “The findings highlight the potential role of lifestyle interventions on thyroid cancer, especially in those with high genetic risk, because the heritability of thyroid cancer was very high, approximately 50%,” he said. “More attention should be paid to the role of healthier lifestyle in the prevention of cancer,” he added.

“Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the risk of thyroid cancer, which is the important message for clinicians,” said Dr. Yang. “It is not too soon to comment on implications for clinical practice, because many studies have maintained the consistent comment that healthier lifestyle could prevent the occurrence of cancer,” he said.

The relationship between sex-specific lifestyle factors such as smoking and alcohol use and thyroid cancer remains uncertain, and more research is needed to validate these associations, Dr. Yang said. More research also is needed to confirm the complex mechanism between lifestyle and genetics in thyroid cancer, he added.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A healthier lifestyle mitigated the impact of genetic factors on the risk of thyroid cancer, in a study based on data from more than 260,000 individuals.

Thyroid cancer has increased globally in recent years and ranks 9th among 36 cancers worldwide, at a considerable cost to health care systems, wrote Xiuming Feng of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China, and colleagues.

SciePro/Science Source

Both genetic and lifestyle factors are related to thyroid cancer; previous research suggests a heritability of about 50%, but data on the impact of modifiable lifestyle factors on thyroid cancer are limited, the researchers said.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers used data from the UK Biobank and recruited adults aged 40-69 years during March 2006–October 2010. The final study population included 264,956 individuals of European descent. The median age of the participants was 57 years, and 52% were women.

Data on lifestyle behaviors were collected using interviews and questionnaires. The researchers constructed a total lifestyle score based on five variables: diet, physical activity, weight, smoking, and alcohol consumption. Each variable was assigned a score of 0 or 1, with 1 being favorable lifestyle behavior. Lifestyle was divided into three categories: unfavorable (scores 0-1), intermediate (score 2), and favorable (scores 3-5).

Each individual’s polygenic risk score (PRS) was categorized as low, intermediate, or high based on a meta–genome-wide association study of three cohorts.

The main outcome was the development of thyroid cancer.

The researchers identified 423 incident thyroid cancer cases over a median follow-up of 11.1 years.

Overall, higher PRSs were significantly associated with thyroid cancer (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-2.64; P < .00001) as was an unfavorable lifestyle score (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.50-2.49; P < .001 for trend).

An unfavorable lifestyle was significantly associated with thyroid cancer in the highest PRS group, and individuals with high PRS and unfavorable lifestyle had a nearly fivefold increased risk of thyroid cancer (HR, 4.89; 95% CI, 3.03-7.91; P < .001). By extension, “Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the incidence of thyroid cancer in individuals with a higher PRS,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the availability of only baseline lifestyle data, and lack of data on iodine intake, radiation exposure, experience, and family history, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the potential lack of generalizability to populations other than the individuals of European descent in the current study, they said.

However, the study is the first known to address the association among lifestyle, genetic factors, and risk of thyroid cancer, and was strengthened by the large study population, and the results suggest that lifestyle interventions may help reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with a genetic predisposition, they concluded.

Healthy living can make a difference

The incidence of thyroid cancer has increased annually, and exploring the possible risk factors could prevent the occurrence of thyroid cancer, corresponding author Xiaobo Yang, PhD, said in an interview.

Previous studies have reported that thyroid cancer is related to genetics and lifestyle, said Dr. Yang. “However, whether healthy lifestyle was associated with thyroid cancer risk and could attenuate the impact of genetic variants on thyroid cancer remains equivocal; therefore, it is crucial to determine the associations between genetic and lifestyle with thyroid cancer,” he said.

“To our surprise, we found that adherence to healthier lifestyle also could reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with high genetic predispositions,” said Dr. Yang. “The findings highlight the potential role of lifestyle interventions on thyroid cancer, especially in those with high genetic risk, because the heritability of thyroid cancer was very high, approximately 50%,” he said. “More attention should be paid to the role of healthier lifestyle in the prevention of cancer,” he added.

“Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the risk of thyroid cancer, which is the important message for clinicians,” said Dr. Yang. “It is not too soon to comment on implications for clinical practice, because many studies have maintained the consistent comment that healthier lifestyle could prevent the occurrence of cancer,” he said.

The relationship between sex-specific lifestyle factors such as smoking and alcohol use and thyroid cancer remains uncertain, and more research is needed to validate these associations, Dr. Yang said. More research also is needed to confirm the complex mechanism between lifestyle and genetics in thyroid cancer, he added.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.

“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.

“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.

“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.

“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”

“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”

Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”

She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
 

Dose/response relationship

The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.

The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.

During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.

The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.

“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.

These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.

“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
 

Keeping dose to a minimum

The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.

“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.

“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”

The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.

“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.

“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.

“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.

“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”

“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”

Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”

She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
 

Dose/response relationship

The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.

The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.

During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.

The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.

“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.

These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.

“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
 

Keeping dose to a minimum

The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.

“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.

“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”

The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.

“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.

“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.

“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.

“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”

“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”

Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”

She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
 

Dose/response relationship

The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.

The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.

During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.

The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.

“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.

These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.

“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
 

Keeping dose to a minimum

The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.

“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.

“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”

The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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