User login
Few new cancer drugs replace current standards of care
, a new analysis shows.
Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.
“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.
To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.
The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.
Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.
A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.
Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.
A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.
Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.
The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).
The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”
The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new analysis shows.
Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.
“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.
To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.
The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.
Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.
A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.
Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.
A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.
Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.
The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).
The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”
The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new analysis shows.
Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.
“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.
To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.
The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.
Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.
A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.
Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.
A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.
Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.
The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).
The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”
The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Ways to lessen toxic effects of chemo in older adults
Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.1-3
Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects
A cluster randomized trial1 at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.
The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices
A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues2 is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication
A secondary analysis3 of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues2 evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.
In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.
Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
References
1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.
2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.
3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.1-3
Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects
A cluster randomized trial1 at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.
The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices
A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues2 is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication
A secondary analysis3 of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues2 evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.
In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.
Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
References
1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.
2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.
3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.1-3
Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects
A cluster randomized trial1 at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.
The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices
A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues2 is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication
A secondary analysis3 of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues2 evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.
In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.
Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
References
1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.
2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.
3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Burden of thyroid cancer: Substantial and increasing
in many developed countries, including the Unites States, concluded a new analysis based on 30 years of observational data.
“We report overall increases in the burden of thyroid cancer across the majority of EU15+ countries between 1990 and 2019, evidenced by plateaus in incidence rates and reductions in mortality and DALY [disability-adjusted life-years] rates,” the authors reported.
“However, in a number of countries, including the U.S., there are unfavorable increasing mortality and DALY trends over this time period ... [and] a better understanding of the trends in the disease burden of thyroid cancer may help to inform future health system planning,” they added.
The study was published online March 10, 2022, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
Trends in thyroid cancer
For the analysis, James Schuster-Bruce, MBChB, from St. George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues compared trends in thyroid cancer across 30 years of follow-up among 15 countries of the (pre-2004) European Union as well as those in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Norway (EU15+).
Data from the Global Burden of Disease study database were used to track these trends. “We extracted age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs), age-standardized mortality rates (ASMRs), and DALYs for thyroid cancer from EU15+ countries between 1990 and 2019 using the dedicated GBD study results tool,” the investigators explained.
In 2019, ASIRs were highest in Italy at 6.36 per 100,000 population, followed by the United States at a rate of 5.59 per 100,000 population – although incidence rates of thyroid cancer have actually recently decreased in U.S. women, they noted.
“Thirteen of 19 countries showed an average annual percentage increase in ASIR across the study period,” the investigators added. Out of all the EU15+ countries, the average annual percentage change (AAPC) was the highest in Australia at 2.5 per 100,000 population and the United States at 1.2 per 100,000.
On the other hand, a largely plateauing trend in incidence rates across the majority of EU15+ nations has been observed since 1990, as reflected by incidence rates ranging from –0.8 to 0.8 per 100,000 in the most recent period, the researchers added. ASMRs ranged from a 0.40 per 100,000 in Greece to 0.57 per 100,000 in Luxembourg.
In the United States, the ASMR in 2019 was 0.43 per 100,000 population while the ASMR was the lowest in the United Kingdom in the same year at 0.38 per 100,000 population.
Australia, Denmark, and the United States were the only countries showing positive AAPC changes, the team observed. For example, in the most recent period to 2019, Denmark and Australia had reductions in ASMR trends, whereas in the United States, the trend was toward increasing ASMRs
In 2019, the DALYs of the EU15+ nations ranged from 9.63 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom to 14.46 per 100,000 in Luxembourg. In the most recent period, a downward trend in DALYs was observed in Australia and Denmark while it plateaued in the United States.
“Overall, we identified improvements in thyroid cancer mortality and DALYs, but overall increases in thyroid cancer incidence in EU15+ countries over the past 3 decades,” the investigators commented.
It has been widely suggested that improvements in diagnostic techniques have contributed significantly to increasing incidence rates of thyroid cancer, but there is concern about overdiagnosis. Newer diagnostic techniques detect significant numbers of slow-growing, subclinical papillary thyroid cancers that make up at least one quarter of all thyroid cancer subtypes, the authors pointed out.
“It has therefore been suggested that an increase in subclinical disease has inflated the data to look more substantial than the clinical reality,” the authors wrote. However, they insisted that overdiagnosis alone is unlikely to account entirely for increasing incidence trends in the current analysis.
Rather, their concern for countries with high incidence rates of thyroid cancer is the surveillance burden of disease that does not affect mortality. “Close observation of future time trends in thyroid cancer disease burden should be performed in the context of recent changes in international clinical practice guidelines, which have suggested more conservative diagnostic and management strategies,” the authors suggested.
“In the context of the more conservative treatment guidelines and reported increase in true disease, it is important to closely observe mortality and DALYs over the coming years to ensure optimum thyroid cancer management in these nations,” they added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Schuster-Bruce disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in many developed countries, including the Unites States, concluded a new analysis based on 30 years of observational data.
“We report overall increases in the burden of thyroid cancer across the majority of EU15+ countries between 1990 and 2019, evidenced by plateaus in incidence rates and reductions in mortality and DALY [disability-adjusted life-years] rates,” the authors reported.
“However, in a number of countries, including the U.S., there are unfavorable increasing mortality and DALY trends over this time period ... [and] a better understanding of the trends in the disease burden of thyroid cancer may help to inform future health system planning,” they added.
The study was published online March 10, 2022, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
Trends in thyroid cancer
For the analysis, James Schuster-Bruce, MBChB, from St. George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues compared trends in thyroid cancer across 30 years of follow-up among 15 countries of the (pre-2004) European Union as well as those in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Norway (EU15+).
Data from the Global Burden of Disease study database were used to track these trends. “We extracted age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs), age-standardized mortality rates (ASMRs), and DALYs for thyroid cancer from EU15+ countries between 1990 and 2019 using the dedicated GBD study results tool,” the investigators explained.
In 2019, ASIRs were highest in Italy at 6.36 per 100,000 population, followed by the United States at a rate of 5.59 per 100,000 population – although incidence rates of thyroid cancer have actually recently decreased in U.S. women, they noted.
“Thirteen of 19 countries showed an average annual percentage increase in ASIR across the study period,” the investigators added. Out of all the EU15+ countries, the average annual percentage change (AAPC) was the highest in Australia at 2.5 per 100,000 population and the United States at 1.2 per 100,000.
On the other hand, a largely plateauing trend in incidence rates across the majority of EU15+ nations has been observed since 1990, as reflected by incidence rates ranging from –0.8 to 0.8 per 100,000 in the most recent period, the researchers added. ASMRs ranged from a 0.40 per 100,000 in Greece to 0.57 per 100,000 in Luxembourg.
In the United States, the ASMR in 2019 was 0.43 per 100,000 population while the ASMR was the lowest in the United Kingdom in the same year at 0.38 per 100,000 population.
Australia, Denmark, and the United States were the only countries showing positive AAPC changes, the team observed. For example, in the most recent period to 2019, Denmark and Australia had reductions in ASMR trends, whereas in the United States, the trend was toward increasing ASMRs
In 2019, the DALYs of the EU15+ nations ranged from 9.63 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom to 14.46 per 100,000 in Luxembourg. In the most recent period, a downward trend in DALYs was observed in Australia and Denmark while it plateaued in the United States.
“Overall, we identified improvements in thyroid cancer mortality and DALYs, but overall increases in thyroid cancer incidence in EU15+ countries over the past 3 decades,” the investigators commented.
It has been widely suggested that improvements in diagnostic techniques have contributed significantly to increasing incidence rates of thyroid cancer, but there is concern about overdiagnosis. Newer diagnostic techniques detect significant numbers of slow-growing, subclinical papillary thyroid cancers that make up at least one quarter of all thyroid cancer subtypes, the authors pointed out.
“It has therefore been suggested that an increase in subclinical disease has inflated the data to look more substantial than the clinical reality,” the authors wrote. However, they insisted that overdiagnosis alone is unlikely to account entirely for increasing incidence trends in the current analysis.
Rather, their concern for countries with high incidence rates of thyroid cancer is the surveillance burden of disease that does not affect mortality. “Close observation of future time trends in thyroid cancer disease burden should be performed in the context of recent changes in international clinical practice guidelines, which have suggested more conservative diagnostic and management strategies,” the authors suggested.
“In the context of the more conservative treatment guidelines and reported increase in true disease, it is important to closely observe mortality and DALYs over the coming years to ensure optimum thyroid cancer management in these nations,” they added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Schuster-Bruce disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in many developed countries, including the Unites States, concluded a new analysis based on 30 years of observational data.
“We report overall increases in the burden of thyroid cancer across the majority of EU15+ countries between 1990 and 2019, evidenced by plateaus in incidence rates and reductions in mortality and DALY [disability-adjusted life-years] rates,” the authors reported.
“However, in a number of countries, including the U.S., there are unfavorable increasing mortality and DALY trends over this time period ... [and] a better understanding of the trends in the disease burden of thyroid cancer may help to inform future health system planning,” they added.
The study was published online March 10, 2022, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
Trends in thyroid cancer
For the analysis, James Schuster-Bruce, MBChB, from St. George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues compared trends in thyroid cancer across 30 years of follow-up among 15 countries of the (pre-2004) European Union as well as those in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Norway (EU15+).
Data from the Global Burden of Disease study database were used to track these trends. “We extracted age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs), age-standardized mortality rates (ASMRs), and DALYs for thyroid cancer from EU15+ countries between 1990 and 2019 using the dedicated GBD study results tool,” the investigators explained.
In 2019, ASIRs were highest in Italy at 6.36 per 100,000 population, followed by the United States at a rate of 5.59 per 100,000 population – although incidence rates of thyroid cancer have actually recently decreased in U.S. women, they noted.
“Thirteen of 19 countries showed an average annual percentage increase in ASIR across the study period,” the investigators added. Out of all the EU15+ countries, the average annual percentage change (AAPC) was the highest in Australia at 2.5 per 100,000 population and the United States at 1.2 per 100,000.
On the other hand, a largely plateauing trend in incidence rates across the majority of EU15+ nations has been observed since 1990, as reflected by incidence rates ranging from –0.8 to 0.8 per 100,000 in the most recent period, the researchers added. ASMRs ranged from a 0.40 per 100,000 in Greece to 0.57 per 100,000 in Luxembourg.
In the United States, the ASMR in 2019 was 0.43 per 100,000 population while the ASMR was the lowest in the United Kingdom in the same year at 0.38 per 100,000 population.
Australia, Denmark, and the United States were the only countries showing positive AAPC changes, the team observed. For example, in the most recent period to 2019, Denmark and Australia had reductions in ASMR trends, whereas in the United States, the trend was toward increasing ASMRs
In 2019, the DALYs of the EU15+ nations ranged from 9.63 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom to 14.46 per 100,000 in Luxembourg. In the most recent period, a downward trend in DALYs was observed in Australia and Denmark while it plateaued in the United States.
“Overall, we identified improvements in thyroid cancer mortality and DALYs, but overall increases in thyroid cancer incidence in EU15+ countries over the past 3 decades,” the investigators commented.
It has been widely suggested that improvements in diagnostic techniques have contributed significantly to increasing incidence rates of thyroid cancer, but there is concern about overdiagnosis. Newer diagnostic techniques detect significant numbers of slow-growing, subclinical papillary thyroid cancers that make up at least one quarter of all thyroid cancer subtypes, the authors pointed out.
“It has therefore been suggested that an increase in subclinical disease has inflated the data to look more substantial than the clinical reality,” the authors wrote. However, they insisted that overdiagnosis alone is unlikely to account entirely for increasing incidence trends in the current analysis.
Rather, their concern for countries with high incidence rates of thyroid cancer is the surveillance burden of disease that does not affect mortality. “Close observation of future time trends in thyroid cancer disease burden should be performed in the context of recent changes in international clinical practice guidelines, which have suggested more conservative diagnostic and management strategies,” the authors suggested.
“In the context of the more conservative treatment guidelines and reported increase in true disease, it is important to closely observe mortality and DALYs over the coming years to ensure optimum thyroid cancer management in these nations,” they added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Schuster-Bruce disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY–HEAD & NECK SURGERY.
New 3D printable stent holds promise for tracheal tumors
Airflow obstruction caused by a malignant tracheal tumor may be managed with a uniquely designed, 3-dimensional (3D) drug-eluting tracheal stent that, at least in animal models so far, works well and may soon be ready for human trials, Chinese investigators are reporting.
The research was published online Jan. 29 in Materials Today Chemistry.
The problems with currently available stents used to treat airflow obstruction are considerable, corresponding author Shengrong Guo, PhD, professor of pharmaceutics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, and colleagues observe. “Tracheal stents physically open up stenosis, recover airway patency, and promptly relieve symptoms, but [they] cannot treat the tumor,” they explain.
“Thus, tracheal restenosis always occurs soon [after], due to progressive tumor growth after stent placement,” they add. Moreover, implanted stents cover the entire tracheal mucosa, thus preventing mucus and sputum discharge, causing airway blockage, the investigators also note. Compounding these flaws is the unalterable fact that delivery of chemotherapy to a malignant tracheal tumor is inefficient, and systemic chemotherapy is always associated with systemic side effects.
All of these issues make it very challenging to treat these tumors, Dr. Guo noted. On the other hand, if there were a means to deliver a chemotherapeutic agent more directly to the disease site – as is done with drug-eluting beads, for example, in other tumor types – then at least drug delivery would be much more efficient. “In this study, a novel tracheal stent was designed with features of a C-shaped and trilayered wall,” the researchers explain.
The gap angle of the newly developed stent is 72°; the inner diameter is 0.5 cm, and it is 2.0 cm in length. The trilayered wall consists of an inner layer of poly (ε-caprolactone) (PCL), which is a biodegradable and implantable material used alone or compounded with other ingredients to print implants. The middle layer consists of magnetic nanoparticle (MNP)–loaded PCL. The authors explain that MNPs have been approved in the U.S. as contrast agents in MRI.
Combined with temperature-responsive materials, MNPs can serve as a source of magnetic thermotherapy as well, which can be used to control drug release and facilitate drug penetration into deeper tissues. The outer layer of the stent contains a paclitaxel-loaded ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer layer.
“The C-shaped tracheal stents are easily fabricated on a roller by using a self-made specific three-dimensional printer,” the authors explain. They point out that the C-shaped tracheal stents do not cover the entire tracheal wall, and the uncovered gap in that wall allows for normal mucus and sputum discharge.
In vivo evaluation
Once the stents were printed, the researchers evaluated the biosafety and applicability of their C-shaped tracheal stents. Small rabbits weighing 2.5 to 3.0 kg were used as experimental models and were prepared for surgery. The stent was implanted in the rabbits’ tracheas through the use of a simple stent delivery device. During follow-up, the rabbits recovered well without any sign of infection or respiratory complications.
The animals were also eating well within about 5 days of the surgery, and their weight gradually increased, suggesting that the implantation of a stent with intermittent magnetic heating did not lead to any prominent systemic toxicities. “All rabbits were [euthanized] 30 days after the placement of the tracheal stents” and the stent was removed from the rabbits’ trachea, the researchers report.
Close observation of the trachea indicated that the gap left by the C-shaped stent could keep the airway patent without blocking either mucus or sputum discharge. “The stents have good biosafety in rabbits and keep airway patency for 1 month without the occurrence of mucus/sputum blockage after implantation in rabbit trachea,” Dr. Guo and colleagues conclude.
“These results provide a scientific basis for the development of novel self-expandable C-shaped tracheal stents with combinatorial tracheal support and local chemotherapy,” they affirm.
Pediatric airway obstruction
Thus far, the role of 3D printing seems to be most prominent in the treatment of pediatric airway obstruction, where it is used in the surgical planning stages and to create the implant itself. In a systematic review of its use for this, Joshua Stramiello, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues identified 37 original articles, 11 of which discussed 3D printing for surgical planning, and 26 of which discussed 3D printing implants for interventions.
“3D printing for surgical planning not only improves preoperative assessment of surgical approach and stent customization but also helps facilitate patient/family education,” the authors observe. Most of the research so far has been focused on bioresorbable external airway splints and biological grafts, they add – “with both animal studies and human case reports showing good results in improving symptoms.” One clinical series focused on the use of a 3D-printed, patient-specific, bioresorbable airway splint in a cohort of critically ill children with severe tracheobronchomalacia. (Tracheobronchomalacia is the abnormal collapse of the windpipe).
When reported, 29 splints had been implanted in 15 children with intrathoracic tracheobronchomalacia. At a median follow-up of 8.5 months, 12 children were long-term survivors, and all but one lived at home. As recently discussed by George Cheng, MD, cofounder of restor3D, a Duke University startup that created the first 3D-printed airway stent using a compressible biocompatible material with properties similar to that of silicone, personalized airway stents have the potential for advance customization, minimize pressure points, and improve airflow dynamics to increase mucus clearance.
In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already cleared patient-specific airway stents developed by Thomas Gildea, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic. Both the Duke University and Cleveland Clinic stents have been used in patients, with promising outcomes, Dr. Cheng noted.
The authors and Dr. Stramiello and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cheng is the cofounder of restor3D.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Airflow obstruction caused by a malignant tracheal tumor may be managed with a uniquely designed, 3-dimensional (3D) drug-eluting tracheal stent that, at least in animal models so far, works well and may soon be ready for human trials, Chinese investigators are reporting.
The research was published online Jan. 29 in Materials Today Chemistry.
The problems with currently available stents used to treat airflow obstruction are considerable, corresponding author Shengrong Guo, PhD, professor of pharmaceutics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, and colleagues observe. “Tracheal stents physically open up stenosis, recover airway patency, and promptly relieve symptoms, but [they] cannot treat the tumor,” they explain.
“Thus, tracheal restenosis always occurs soon [after], due to progressive tumor growth after stent placement,” they add. Moreover, implanted stents cover the entire tracheal mucosa, thus preventing mucus and sputum discharge, causing airway blockage, the investigators also note. Compounding these flaws is the unalterable fact that delivery of chemotherapy to a malignant tracheal tumor is inefficient, and systemic chemotherapy is always associated with systemic side effects.
All of these issues make it very challenging to treat these tumors, Dr. Guo noted. On the other hand, if there were a means to deliver a chemotherapeutic agent more directly to the disease site – as is done with drug-eluting beads, for example, in other tumor types – then at least drug delivery would be much more efficient. “In this study, a novel tracheal stent was designed with features of a C-shaped and trilayered wall,” the researchers explain.
The gap angle of the newly developed stent is 72°; the inner diameter is 0.5 cm, and it is 2.0 cm in length. The trilayered wall consists of an inner layer of poly (ε-caprolactone) (PCL), which is a biodegradable and implantable material used alone or compounded with other ingredients to print implants. The middle layer consists of magnetic nanoparticle (MNP)–loaded PCL. The authors explain that MNPs have been approved in the U.S. as contrast agents in MRI.
Combined with temperature-responsive materials, MNPs can serve as a source of magnetic thermotherapy as well, which can be used to control drug release and facilitate drug penetration into deeper tissues. The outer layer of the stent contains a paclitaxel-loaded ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer layer.
“The C-shaped tracheal stents are easily fabricated on a roller by using a self-made specific three-dimensional printer,” the authors explain. They point out that the C-shaped tracheal stents do not cover the entire tracheal wall, and the uncovered gap in that wall allows for normal mucus and sputum discharge.
In vivo evaluation
Once the stents were printed, the researchers evaluated the biosafety and applicability of their C-shaped tracheal stents. Small rabbits weighing 2.5 to 3.0 kg were used as experimental models and were prepared for surgery. The stent was implanted in the rabbits’ tracheas through the use of a simple stent delivery device. During follow-up, the rabbits recovered well without any sign of infection or respiratory complications.
The animals were also eating well within about 5 days of the surgery, and their weight gradually increased, suggesting that the implantation of a stent with intermittent magnetic heating did not lead to any prominent systemic toxicities. “All rabbits were [euthanized] 30 days after the placement of the tracheal stents” and the stent was removed from the rabbits’ trachea, the researchers report.
Close observation of the trachea indicated that the gap left by the C-shaped stent could keep the airway patent without blocking either mucus or sputum discharge. “The stents have good biosafety in rabbits and keep airway patency for 1 month without the occurrence of mucus/sputum blockage after implantation in rabbit trachea,” Dr. Guo and colleagues conclude.
“These results provide a scientific basis for the development of novel self-expandable C-shaped tracheal stents with combinatorial tracheal support and local chemotherapy,” they affirm.
Pediatric airway obstruction
Thus far, the role of 3D printing seems to be most prominent in the treatment of pediatric airway obstruction, where it is used in the surgical planning stages and to create the implant itself. In a systematic review of its use for this, Joshua Stramiello, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues identified 37 original articles, 11 of which discussed 3D printing for surgical planning, and 26 of which discussed 3D printing implants for interventions.
“3D printing for surgical planning not only improves preoperative assessment of surgical approach and stent customization but also helps facilitate patient/family education,” the authors observe. Most of the research so far has been focused on bioresorbable external airway splints and biological grafts, they add – “with both animal studies and human case reports showing good results in improving symptoms.” One clinical series focused on the use of a 3D-printed, patient-specific, bioresorbable airway splint in a cohort of critically ill children with severe tracheobronchomalacia. (Tracheobronchomalacia is the abnormal collapse of the windpipe).
When reported, 29 splints had been implanted in 15 children with intrathoracic tracheobronchomalacia. At a median follow-up of 8.5 months, 12 children were long-term survivors, and all but one lived at home. As recently discussed by George Cheng, MD, cofounder of restor3D, a Duke University startup that created the first 3D-printed airway stent using a compressible biocompatible material with properties similar to that of silicone, personalized airway stents have the potential for advance customization, minimize pressure points, and improve airflow dynamics to increase mucus clearance.
In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already cleared patient-specific airway stents developed by Thomas Gildea, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic. Both the Duke University and Cleveland Clinic stents have been used in patients, with promising outcomes, Dr. Cheng noted.
The authors and Dr. Stramiello and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cheng is the cofounder of restor3D.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Airflow obstruction caused by a malignant tracheal tumor may be managed with a uniquely designed, 3-dimensional (3D) drug-eluting tracheal stent that, at least in animal models so far, works well and may soon be ready for human trials, Chinese investigators are reporting.
The research was published online Jan. 29 in Materials Today Chemistry.
The problems with currently available stents used to treat airflow obstruction are considerable, corresponding author Shengrong Guo, PhD, professor of pharmaceutics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, and colleagues observe. “Tracheal stents physically open up stenosis, recover airway patency, and promptly relieve symptoms, but [they] cannot treat the tumor,” they explain.
“Thus, tracheal restenosis always occurs soon [after], due to progressive tumor growth after stent placement,” they add. Moreover, implanted stents cover the entire tracheal mucosa, thus preventing mucus and sputum discharge, causing airway blockage, the investigators also note. Compounding these flaws is the unalterable fact that delivery of chemotherapy to a malignant tracheal tumor is inefficient, and systemic chemotherapy is always associated with systemic side effects.
All of these issues make it very challenging to treat these tumors, Dr. Guo noted. On the other hand, if there were a means to deliver a chemotherapeutic agent more directly to the disease site – as is done with drug-eluting beads, for example, in other tumor types – then at least drug delivery would be much more efficient. “In this study, a novel tracheal stent was designed with features of a C-shaped and trilayered wall,” the researchers explain.
The gap angle of the newly developed stent is 72°; the inner diameter is 0.5 cm, and it is 2.0 cm in length. The trilayered wall consists of an inner layer of poly (ε-caprolactone) (PCL), which is a biodegradable and implantable material used alone or compounded with other ingredients to print implants. The middle layer consists of magnetic nanoparticle (MNP)–loaded PCL. The authors explain that MNPs have been approved in the U.S. as contrast agents in MRI.
Combined with temperature-responsive materials, MNPs can serve as a source of magnetic thermotherapy as well, which can be used to control drug release and facilitate drug penetration into deeper tissues. The outer layer of the stent contains a paclitaxel-loaded ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer layer.
“The C-shaped tracheal stents are easily fabricated on a roller by using a self-made specific three-dimensional printer,” the authors explain. They point out that the C-shaped tracheal stents do not cover the entire tracheal wall, and the uncovered gap in that wall allows for normal mucus and sputum discharge.
In vivo evaluation
Once the stents were printed, the researchers evaluated the biosafety and applicability of their C-shaped tracheal stents. Small rabbits weighing 2.5 to 3.0 kg were used as experimental models and were prepared for surgery. The stent was implanted in the rabbits’ tracheas through the use of a simple stent delivery device. During follow-up, the rabbits recovered well without any sign of infection or respiratory complications.
The animals were also eating well within about 5 days of the surgery, and their weight gradually increased, suggesting that the implantation of a stent with intermittent magnetic heating did not lead to any prominent systemic toxicities. “All rabbits were [euthanized] 30 days after the placement of the tracheal stents” and the stent was removed from the rabbits’ trachea, the researchers report.
Close observation of the trachea indicated that the gap left by the C-shaped stent could keep the airway patent without blocking either mucus or sputum discharge. “The stents have good biosafety in rabbits and keep airway patency for 1 month without the occurrence of mucus/sputum blockage after implantation in rabbit trachea,” Dr. Guo and colleagues conclude.
“These results provide a scientific basis for the development of novel self-expandable C-shaped tracheal stents with combinatorial tracheal support and local chemotherapy,” they affirm.
Pediatric airway obstruction
Thus far, the role of 3D printing seems to be most prominent in the treatment of pediatric airway obstruction, where it is used in the surgical planning stages and to create the implant itself. In a systematic review of its use for this, Joshua Stramiello, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues identified 37 original articles, 11 of which discussed 3D printing for surgical planning, and 26 of which discussed 3D printing implants for interventions.
“3D printing for surgical planning not only improves preoperative assessment of surgical approach and stent customization but also helps facilitate patient/family education,” the authors observe. Most of the research so far has been focused on bioresorbable external airway splints and biological grafts, they add – “with both animal studies and human case reports showing good results in improving symptoms.” One clinical series focused on the use of a 3D-printed, patient-specific, bioresorbable airway splint in a cohort of critically ill children with severe tracheobronchomalacia. (Tracheobronchomalacia is the abnormal collapse of the windpipe).
When reported, 29 splints had been implanted in 15 children with intrathoracic tracheobronchomalacia. At a median follow-up of 8.5 months, 12 children were long-term survivors, and all but one lived at home. As recently discussed by George Cheng, MD, cofounder of restor3D, a Duke University startup that created the first 3D-printed airway stent using a compressible biocompatible material with properties similar to that of silicone, personalized airway stents have the potential for advance customization, minimize pressure points, and improve airflow dynamics to increase mucus clearance.
In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already cleared patient-specific airway stents developed by Thomas Gildea, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic. Both the Duke University and Cleveland Clinic stents have been used in patients, with promising outcomes, Dr. Cheng noted.
The authors and Dr. Stramiello and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cheng is the cofounder of restor3D.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Radioactive iodine shows no benefit in low-risk thyroid cancer
, suggesting these patients can be spared the previously common treatment.
The study’s take-home message for clinicians should be to “stop systematic radioiodine ablation administration in low-risk thyroid cancer patients,” lead author Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
The results were first reported at ENDO 2021 and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Leboulleux, of the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.
While American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines already indicate that radioiodine ablation is not routinely recommended after thyroidectomy for patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, the guidance is only a “weak recommendation,” supported by “low-quality evidence.”
However, the new findings should give that level of evidence a much-needed boost, said one expert. “I think the main contribution of this paper is to change the evidence level to ‘high quality,’ therefore making the recommendation ‘strong,’ rather than ‘weak,’ ” David S. Cooper, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Cooper, professor of medicine and radiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote an editorial that accompanies Dr. Leboulleux’s study.
The ability to safely spare patients the radioiodine ablation step after thyroidectomy has important benefits in terms of cost and convenience, Dr. Cooper stressed.
ESTIMABL2 trial
The new findings are from the prospective, randomized, phase 3 Essai Stimulation Ablation 2 (ESTIMABL2) trial, in which 730 patients at 35 centers in France with low-risk DTC scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy were enrolled between May 2013 and March 2017.
Patients were randomized to receive either postoperative radioiodine ablation (1.1 GBq) after injections of recombinant human thyrotropin (n = 363) or no postoperative radioiodine (n = 367).
Patients were a mean age of 52 years and 83% were women. About 96% had papillary tumors, and pathological tumor node (pTN) stages were mostly pT1b thyroid with a nodal status of N0 or Nx (81.1%). It is these patients in particular in whom retrospective studies of the use of radioiodine ablation have yielded inconsistent results, Dr. Leboulleux and colleagues noted. Hence, their decision to look at this prospectively.
Outcomes were based on the groups’ rates of events, defined as the presence of abnormal foci of radioiodine uptake on whole-body scanning that required treatment (in the radioiodine group only), abnormal findings on neck ultrasonography, or increased levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies.
After a 3-year follow-up, the rates of having no events in both groups were very high – and nearly identical – at 95.6% among those receiving no radioiodine ablation and 95.9% in the radioiodine group, for a between-group difference of –0.3 percentage points, which met the criteria for noninferiority for the no-radioiodine group.
Likewise, the events that did occur were nearly equally split between the no-radioiodine group (16 events, 4.4%) and the radioiodine group (15 events, 4.1%).
Among patients who had events, subsequent treatments, including surgery, radioiodine administration, or both, were necessary for four patients in the no-radioiodine group and 10 in the radioiodine group, and additional treatments were not necessary for the other patients who experienced events.
There were no differences between those who did and did not experience events in terms of molecular alterations, and 50 of the tumors had BRAF mutations, with no significant differences between groups.
Of the adverse events that occurred in 30 patients, none were determined to be related to treatment, and there were no thyroid-related deaths.
The recurrence rates align with the rates observed overall with low-risk thyroid cancer, the authors noted.
“We observed that less than 5% of the patients in the two groups had events that included abnormal findings on whole-body scanning or neck ultrasonography or elevated levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies during the first 3 years of follow-up,” they reported.
“This rate is concordant with the definition of low-risk thyroid cancer, and our trial showed that the risk of events was not higher in the absence of postoperative administration of radioiodine.”
Patients spared costs, work losses
Dr. Cooper elaborated on the advantages, for patients, of avoiding radioiodine ablation.
For one thing, the recombinant human TSH that is necessary to prepare for radioiodine therapy is very expensive, ranging from $2,000 to $3,000, with patients often having a copay, he explained.
“Patients usually have to take time off work, which is also an expense to society and to them if they don’t get paid for days that they don’t work,” Dr. Cooper added.
A possible study limitation is the question of whether 3 years is an ample follow-up period to detect events. However, Dr. Cooper said he considers the period to be sufficient.
“As the authors point out, most recurrences of thyroid cancer are detected within the first 3-5 years of initial treatment, so ... the 3-year window is still clinically relevant,” he said.
Regarding the study’s inclusion of centers only in France, Dr. Cooper added, “I do not think that this is a study limitation. There is nothing specific about the French population that would lead me to conclude that the results were not generalizable to all populations with low-risk papillary thyroid cancer.”
Some continue radioiodine use, but lobectomies add to decline
Despite the mounting evidence of the lack of benefit of radioiodine ablation in low-risk patients, some centers, particularly in Europe, continue the practice, which was standard in the treatment of DTC until relatively recently.
“[While] U.S. guidelines changed in 2015 in favor of no radioiodine in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients, this study should help to change European guidelines,” Dr. Leboulleux said. “The results will help to change practice both in the U.S. and in Europe.”
In addition to awareness of guidelines and new evidence, another reason for the decline in radioiodine ablation for low-risk DTC is the increasing use of thyroid lobectomy, which does not involve the use of radioiodine ablation, rather than total thyroidectomy, Dr. Cooper noted.
“The [new] NEJM paper will hopefully decrease the inappropriate use of radioiodine in low-risk patients even further,” he concluded.
The study received support from the French Ministry of Health through a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggesting these patients can be spared the previously common treatment.
The study’s take-home message for clinicians should be to “stop systematic radioiodine ablation administration in low-risk thyroid cancer patients,” lead author Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
The results were first reported at ENDO 2021 and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Leboulleux, of the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.
While American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines already indicate that radioiodine ablation is not routinely recommended after thyroidectomy for patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, the guidance is only a “weak recommendation,” supported by “low-quality evidence.”
However, the new findings should give that level of evidence a much-needed boost, said one expert. “I think the main contribution of this paper is to change the evidence level to ‘high quality,’ therefore making the recommendation ‘strong,’ rather than ‘weak,’ ” David S. Cooper, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Cooper, professor of medicine and radiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote an editorial that accompanies Dr. Leboulleux’s study.
The ability to safely spare patients the radioiodine ablation step after thyroidectomy has important benefits in terms of cost and convenience, Dr. Cooper stressed.
ESTIMABL2 trial
The new findings are from the prospective, randomized, phase 3 Essai Stimulation Ablation 2 (ESTIMABL2) trial, in which 730 patients at 35 centers in France with low-risk DTC scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy were enrolled between May 2013 and March 2017.
Patients were randomized to receive either postoperative radioiodine ablation (1.1 GBq) after injections of recombinant human thyrotropin (n = 363) or no postoperative radioiodine (n = 367).
Patients were a mean age of 52 years and 83% were women. About 96% had papillary tumors, and pathological tumor node (pTN) stages were mostly pT1b thyroid with a nodal status of N0 or Nx (81.1%). It is these patients in particular in whom retrospective studies of the use of radioiodine ablation have yielded inconsistent results, Dr. Leboulleux and colleagues noted. Hence, their decision to look at this prospectively.
Outcomes were based on the groups’ rates of events, defined as the presence of abnormal foci of radioiodine uptake on whole-body scanning that required treatment (in the radioiodine group only), abnormal findings on neck ultrasonography, or increased levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies.
After a 3-year follow-up, the rates of having no events in both groups were very high – and nearly identical – at 95.6% among those receiving no radioiodine ablation and 95.9% in the radioiodine group, for a between-group difference of –0.3 percentage points, which met the criteria for noninferiority for the no-radioiodine group.
Likewise, the events that did occur were nearly equally split between the no-radioiodine group (16 events, 4.4%) and the radioiodine group (15 events, 4.1%).
Among patients who had events, subsequent treatments, including surgery, radioiodine administration, or both, were necessary for four patients in the no-radioiodine group and 10 in the radioiodine group, and additional treatments were not necessary for the other patients who experienced events.
There were no differences between those who did and did not experience events in terms of molecular alterations, and 50 of the tumors had BRAF mutations, with no significant differences between groups.
Of the adverse events that occurred in 30 patients, none were determined to be related to treatment, and there were no thyroid-related deaths.
The recurrence rates align with the rates observed overall with low-risk thyroid cancer, the authors noted.
“We observed that less than 5% of the patients in the two groups had events that included abnormal findings on whole-body scanning or neck ultrasonography or elevated levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies during the first 3 years of follow-up,” they reported.
“This rate is concordant with the definition of low-risk thyroid cancer, and our trial showed that the risk of events was not higher in the absence of postoperative administration of radioiodine.”
Patients spared costs, work losses
Dr. Cooper elaborated on the advantages, for patients, of avoiding radioiodine ablation.
For one thing, the recombinant human TSH that is necessary to prepare for radioiodine therapy is very expensive, ranging from $2,000 to $3,000, with patients often having a copay, he explained.
“Patients usually have to take time off work, which is also an expense to society and to them if they don’t get paid for days that they don’t work,” Dr. Cooper added.
A possible study limitation is the question of whether 3 years is an ample follow-up period to detect events. However, Dr. Cooper said he considers the period to be sufficient.
“As the authors point out, most recurrences of thyroid cancer are detected within the first 3-5 years of initial treatment, so ... the 3-year window is still clinically relevant,” he said.
Regarding the study’s inclusion of centers only in France, Dr. Cooper added, “I do not think that this is a study limitation. There is nothing specific about the French population that would lead me to conclude that the results were not generalizable to all populations with low-risk papillary thyroid cancer.”
Some continue radioiodine use, but lobectomies add to decline
Despite the mounting evidence of the lack of benefit of radioiodine ablation in low-risk patients, some centers, particularly in Europe, continue the practice, which was standard in the treatment of DTC until relatively recently.
“[While] U.S. guidelines changed in 2015 in favor of no radioiodine in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients, this study should help to change European guidelines,” Dr. Leboulleux said. “The results will help to change practice both in the U.S. and in Europe.”
In addition to awareness of guidelines and new evidence, another reason for the decline in radioiodine ablation for low-risk DTC is the increasing use of thyroid lobectomy, which does not involve the use of radioiodine ablation, rather than total thyroidectomy, Dr. Cooper noted.
“The [new] NEJM paper will hopefully decrease the inappropriate use of radioiodine in low-risk patients even further,” he concluded.
The study received support from the French Ministry of Health through a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggesting these patients can be spared the previously common treatment.
The study’s take-home message for clinicians should be to “stop systematic radioiodine ablation administration in low-risk thyroid cancer patients,” lead author Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
The results were first reported at ENDO 2021 and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Leboulleux, of the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.
While American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines already indicate that radioiodine ablation is not routinely recommended after thyroidectomy for patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, the guidance is only a “weak recommendation,” supported by “low-quality evidence.”
However, the new findings should give that level of evidence a much-needed boost, said one expert. “I think the main contribution of this paper is to change the evidence level to ‘high quality,’ therefore making the recommendation ‘strong,’ rather than ‘weak,’ ” David S. Cooper, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Cooper, professor of medicine and radiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote an editorial that accompanies Dr. Leboulleux’s study.
The ability to safely spare patients the radioiodine ablation step after thyroidectomy has important benefits in terms of cost and convenience, Dr. Cooper stressed.
ESTIMABL2 trial
The new findings are from the prospective, randomized, phase 3 Essai Stimulation Ablation 2 (ESTIMABL2) trial, in which 730 patients at 35 centers in France with low-risk DTC scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy were enrolled between May 2013 and March 2017.
Patients were randomized to receive either postoperative radioiodine ablation (1.1 GBq) after injections of recombinant human thyrotropin (n = 363) or no postoperative radioiodine (n = 367).
Patients were a mean age of 52 years and 83% were women. About 96% had papillary tumors, and pathological tumor node (pTN) stages were mostly pT1b thyroid with a nodal status of N0 or Nx (81.1%). It is these patients in particular in whom retrospective studies of the use of radioiodine ablation have yielded inconsistent results, Dr. Leboulleux and colleagues noted. Hence, their decision to look at this prospectively.
Outcomes were based on the groups’ rates of events, defined as the presence of abnormal foci of radioiodine uptake on whole-body scanning that required treatment (in the radioiodine group only), abnormal findings on neck ultrasonography, or increased levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies.
After a 3-year follow-up, the rates of having no events in both groups were very high – and nearly identical – at 95.6% among those receiving no radioiodine ablation and 95.9% in the radioiodine group, for a between-group difference of –0.3 percentage points, which met the criteria for noninferiority for the no-radioiodine group.
Likewise, the events that did occur were nearly equally split between the no-radioiodine group (16 events, 4.4%) and the radioiodine group (15 events, 4.1%).
Among patients who had events, subsequent treatments, including surgery, radioiodine administration, or both, were necessary for four patients in the no-radioiodine group and 10 in the radioiodine group, and additional treatments were not necessary for the other patients who experienced events.
There were no differences between those who did and did not experience events in terms of molecular alterations, and 50 of the tumors had BRAF mutations, with no significant differences between groups.
Of the adverse events that occurred in 30 patients, none were determined to be related to treatment, and there were no thyroid-related deaths.
The recurrence rates align with the rates observed overall with low-risk thyroid cancer, the authors noted.
“We observed that less than 5% of the patients in the two groups had events that included abnormal findings on whole-body scanning or neck ultrasonography or elevated levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies during the first 3 years of follow-up,” they reported.
“This rate is concordant with the definition of low-risk thyroid cancer, and our trial showed that the risk of events was not higher in the absence of postoperative administration of radioiodine.”
Patients spared costs, work losses
Dr. Cooper elaborated on the advantages, for patients, of avoiding radioiodine ablation.
For one thing, the recombinant human TSH that is necessary to prepare for radioiodine therapy is very expensive, ranging from $2,000 to $3,000, with patients often having a copay, he explained.
“Patients usually have to take time off work, which is also an expense to society and to them if they don’t get paid for days that they don’t work,” Dr. Cooper added.
A possible study limitation is the question of whether 3 years is an ample follow-up period to detect events. However, Dr. Cooper said he considers the period to be sufficient.
“As the authors point out, most recurrences of thyroid cancer are detected within the first 3-5 years of initial treatment, so ... the 3-year window is still clinically relevant,” he said.
Regarding the study’s inclusion of centers only in France, Dr. Cooper added, “I do not think that this is a study limitation. There is nothing specific about the French population that would lead me to conclude that the results were not generalizable to all populations with low-risk papillary thyroid cancer.”
Some continue radioiodine use, but lobectomies add to decline
Despite the mounting evidence of the lack of benefit of radioiodine ablation in low-risk patients, some centers, particularly in Europe, continue the practice, which was standard in the treatment of DTC until relatively recently.
“[While] U.S. guidelines changed in 2015 in favor of no radioiodine in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients, this study should help to change European guidelines,” Dr. Leboulleux said. “The results will help to change practice both in the U.S. and in Europe.”
In addition to awareness of guidelines and new evidence, another reason for the decline in radioiodine ablation for low-risk DTC is the increasing use of thyroid lobectomy, which does not involve the use of radioiodine ablation, rather than total thyroidectomy, Dr. Cooper noted.
“The [new] NEJM paper will hopefully decrease the inappropriate use of radioiodine in low-risk patients even further,” he concluded.
The study received support from the French Ministry of Health through a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Filling opioid prescriptions akin to a Sisyphean task
Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic,
A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.
She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.
Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.
I send an e-prescription for the same opioid Joan’s currently taking, but in a long-acting format that will slow-release over 8-10 hours, relieving her of the need to take a medication every 3-4 hours. I have learned over the years that nearly every long-acting opioid automatically generates a prior authorization request from the patient’s insurance company and so I immediately email our prior authorization team to submit to Joan’s insurance right away to avoid this extra delay.
Our prior authorization team is exceptionally responsive and submits these requests with urgency every time – they understand that cancer pain is a serious problem and we can’t wait 5 business days for answers. They are typically able to obtain an approved prior authorization for nearly every long-acting opioid I write within 24-48 hours.
But here’s where things go sideways.
First, the insurance company denies the prior authorization request, demanding that I revise the prescription from the long-acting version of the opioid she is currently taking to a cheaper, older opioid that she’s never tried before. In other words, they won’t cover the drug I requested without Joan first trying a completely different drug and failing it. This only makes sense for the insurance company’s bottom line – it makes no clinical sense at all. Why would I try a novel compound that Joan’s never had and one to which I have no idea how she’ll respond when I could keep her on the same compound knowing that she tolerates it just fine?
Past experience tells me insurance companies rarely budge on this, and appealing the decision would just introduce even more delay of care, so I begrudgingly change the prescription and send it again to the pharmacy. I message Joan to let her know that her insurance won’t cover my drug of choice and that we have to try this older one first.
A few hours later, Joan sends me a message: “My pharmacy says it’s going to take A WEEK to get the long-acting medicine!”
In the meantime, Joan has been using her short-acting opioid faster than anticipated because of her escalating pain – so she’s now running low on that as well.
I write for more of her short-acting opioid and e-script it to her pharmacy.
Within a few hours, we get another automatic response from her insurance that we’re going to need a prior authorization for additional short-acting opioid because she’s exceeded “quantity limitations,” which as far as I can tell is a completely arbitrary number not based on clinical evidence.
The prior auth team jumps on it and submits to override the quantity limit – successfully – and sends the override code to her pharmacy to reprocess the prescription.
But now the pharmacist tells Joan that they won’t fill the Rx anyway because it’s “too early.” They tell her that “state laws” prevent them from filling the scrip.
Is this true? I have no idea. I’m not an expert on California pharmacy law. All I know is that my patient is in pain and something needs to happen quickly.
I write for a second short-acting opioid – again a completely different compound. Ironically, this Rx goes through instantly without need for prior authorization. But now Joan has to switch to another new drug for no good medical reason.
If you’re still with me this far into the weeds, I’m grateful. In all it took a combined 4 hours of work (between myself and the prior auth team) to get two opioid Rx’s filled – and these were completely different medications than the ones I originally wrote for. I also had to move her prescriptions to the hospital’s pharmacy (another inconvenience for Joan and her family) so that she could get the medications in a timely manner. All this work to ensure that a single patient had adequate and timely pain relief and to prevent her from having to make an unnecessary visit to the emergency department for pain crisis.
This is just a regular day in outpatient palliative care in the era of the opioid epidemic.
The epidemic has caused tremendous pain and suffering for millions of people over the past 2 decades – namely those lost to opioid overdoses and their loved ones. And for the most part, tightening access to opioids for routine aches and pains among a relatively healthy population is not wrong, in my opinion, as long as those restrictions are based in good faith on robust evidence.
But the hidden cost of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for nonmalignant pain, as well as the flurry of restrictive state laws they generated, is felt every day by patients with serious illness even though the guidelines were never meant to affect them. Patients with active cancer, receiving palliative care services, or at the end of life, were supposed to be exempted from these guidelines since good evidence supports the use of opioids in these populations.
Instead of preserving access to desperately needed pain medicine for those suffering with serious illness, states and insurers have aggressively sought to gatekeep opioids from everyone, resulting in stigma, delays, and needless suffering.
Several recent studies have revealed the effects of this gatekeeping on patients with cancer.
A qualitative study with 26 advanced cancer patients described the demoralization and stigma many patients felt when taking opioids, which they directly tied to media messaging around the opioid epidemic. Even when they reluctantly agreed to take opioids to treat cancer-related pain, there were systemic impediments to achieving adequate pain relief – similar to my experience with Joan – that were directly caused by insurance and pharmacy constraints.
Those of us who care for oncology patients also appear to be undertreating cancer-related pain. Another recent study that found the amount of opioid medications prescribed to an advanced cancer patient near the end of life dropped by 38% between 2007 and 2017. The authors suggest that a direct consequence of this decline in appropriate opioid prescribing is an observed 50% rise in emergency department visits over the same time period by cancer patients for pain-related reasons.
This makes sense – if patients aren’t routinely prescribed the opioids they need to manage their cancer-related pain; or, if the stigma against using opioids is so harsh that it causes patients to shun opioids; or, if there are so many system barriers in place to prevent patients from obtaining opioids in a timely manner – then patients’ pain will crescendo, leaving them with little alternative but to head to the emergency department.
This undertreatment is corroborated by another study that examined data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Part D prescriber database between 2013 and 2017, finding that both oncologists and nononcologists prescribed about 21% fewer opioids to Medicare beneficiaries during that time, compared with the period prior to 2013.
Interestingly, the researchers also found that opioid prescribing by palliative care providers increased by 15% over the same period. On a positive note, this suggests the presence of a growing outpatient palliative care workforce. But it may also reflect growing unease among oncologists with the perceived liability for prescribing opioids and a desire to ask other specialists to take on this liability. At the same time, it may reflect the very real and ever-increasing administrative burden associated with prescribing opioids and the fact that busy oncologists may not have time to spend on this aspect of cancer care. Thus, as palliative care clinicians become more visible and numerous in the outpatient arena, oncologists may increasingly ask palliative care clinicians like myself to take this on.
The problem with this is that merely handing off the administrative burden to another clinician doesn’t address the underlying problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests (and my own experiences corroborate) this administrative burden can cause real harm. A survey of 1,000 physicians conducted by the American Medical Association in 2021 found that 93% of respondents reported a delay in patient care due to prior authorization burden and 34% of respondents reported that their patients had suffered a “serious adverse event” due to prior authorization requirements.
The CDC recently announced it will take steps to revise the 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain after hearing from members of the medical community as well as patients living with chronic pain about the harsh, unintended consequences of the guidelines. I can only hope that insurance companies will follow suit, revising their opioid prior authorization requirements to finally come into alignment with the rational, safe use of opioids in patients with advanced cancer. It’s too bad that any improvement in the future will be too late for the millions of patients who have suffered irreversible iatrogenic harms due to delays in achieving adequate pain relief.
Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.
Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic,
A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.
She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.
Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.
I send an e-prescription for the same opioid Joan’s currently taking, but in a long-acting format that will slow-release over 8-10 hours, relieving her of the need to take a medication every 3-4 hours. I have learned over the years that nearly every long-acting opioid automatically generates a prior authorization request from the patient’s insurance company and so I immediately email our prior authorization team to submit to Joan’s insurance right away to avoid this extra delay.
Our prior authorization team is exceptionally responsive and submits these requests with urgency every time – they understand that cancer pain is a serious problem and we can’t wait 5 business days for answers. They are typically able to obtain an approved prior authorization for nearly every long-acting opioid I write within 24-48 hours.
But here’s where things go sideways.
First, the insurance company denies the prior authorization request, demanding that I revise the prescription from the long-acting version of the opioid she is currently taking to a cheaper, older opioid that she’s never tried before. In other words, they won’t cover the drug I requested without Joan first trying a completely different drug and failing it. This only makes sense for the insurance company’s bottom line – it makes no clinical sense at all. Why would I try a novel compound that Joan’s never had and one to which I have no idea how she’ll respond when I could keep her on the same compound knowing that she tolerates it just fine?
Past experience tells me insurance companies rarely budge on this, and appealing the decision would just introduce even more delay of care, so I begrudgingly change the prescription and send it again to the pharmacy. I message Joan to let her know that her insurance won’t cover my drug of choice and that we have to try this older one first.
A few hours later, Joan sends me a message: “My pharmacy says it’s going to take A WEEK to get the long-acting medicine!”
In the meantime, Joan has been using her short-acting opioid faster than anticipated because of her escalating pain – so she’s now running low on that as well.
I write for more of her short-acting opioid and e-script it to her pharmacy.
Within a few hours, we get another automatic response from her insurance that we’re going to need a prior authorization for additional short-acting opioid because she’s exceeded “quantity limitations,” which as far as I can tell is a completely arbitrary number not based on clinical evidence.
The prior auth team jumps on it and submits to override the quantity limit – successfully – and sends the override code to her pharmacy to reprocess the prescription.
But now the pharmacist tells Joan that they won’t fill the Rx anyway because it’s “too early.” They tell her that “state laws” prevent them from filling the scrip.
Is this true? I have no idea. I’m not an expert on California pharmacy law. All I know is that my patient is in pain and something needs to happen quickly.
I write for a second short-acting opioid – again a completely different compound. Ironically, this Rx goes through instantly without need for prior authorization. But now Joan has to switch to another new drug for no good medical reason.
If you’re still with me this far into the weeds, I’m grateful. In all it took a combined 4 hours of work (between myself and the prior auth team) to get two opioid Rx’s filled – and these were completely different medications than the ones I originally wrote for. I also had to move her prescriptions to the hospital’s pharmacy (another inconvenience for Joan and her family) so that she could get the medications in a timely manner. All this work to ensure that a single patient had adequate and timely pain relief and to prevent her from having to make an unnecessary visit to the emergency department for pain crisis.
This is just a regular day in outpatient palliative care in the era of the opioid epidemic.
The epidemic has caused tremendous pain and suffering for millions of people over the past 2 decades – namely those lost to opioid overdoses and their loved ones. And for the most part, tightening access to opioids for routine aches and pains among a relatively healthy population is not wrong, in my opinion, as long as those restrictions are based in good faith on robust evidence.
But the hidden cost of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for nonmalignant pain, as well as the flurry of restrictive state laws they generated, is felt every day by patients with serious illness even though the guidelines were never meant to affect them. Patients with active cancer, receiving palliative care services, or at the end of life, were supposed to be exempted from these guidelines since good evidence supports the use of opioids in these populations.
Instead of preserving access to desperately needed pain medicine for those suffering with serious illness, states and insurers have aggressively sought to gatekeep opioids from everyone, resulting in stigma, delays, and needless suffering.
Several recent studies have revealed the effects of this gatekeeping on patients with cancer.
A qualitative study with 26 advanced cancer patients described the demoralization and stigma many patients felt when taking opioids, which they directly tied to media messaging around the opioid epidemic. Even when they reluctantly agreed to take opioids to treat cancer-related pain, there were systemic impediments to achieving adequate pain relief – similar to my experience with Joan – that were directly caused by insurance and pharmacy constraints.
Those of us who care for oncology patients also appear to be undertreating cancer-related pain. Another recent study that found the amount of opioid medications prescribed to an advanced cancer patient near the end of life dropped by 38% between 2007 and 2017. The authors suggest that a direct consequence of this decline in appropriate opioid prescribing is an observed 50% rise in emergency department visits over the same time period by cancer patients for pain-related reasons.
This makes sense – if patients aren’t routinely prescribed the opioids they need to manage their cancer-related pain; or, if the stigma against using opioids is so harsh that it causes patients to shun opioids; or, if there are so many system barriers in place to prevent patients from obtaining opioids in a timely manner – then patients’ pain will crescendo, leaving them with little alternative but to head to the emergency department.
This undertreatment is corroborated by another study that examined data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Part D prescriber database between 2013 and 2017, finding that both oncologists and nononcologists prescribed about 21% fewer opioids to Medicare beneficiaries during that time, compared with the period prior to 2013.
Interestingly, the researchers also found that opioid prescribing by palliative care providers increased by 15% over the same period. On a positive note, this suggests the presence of a growing outpatient palliative care workforce. But it may also reflect growing unease among oncologists with the perceived liability for prescribing opioids and a desire to ask other specialists to take on this liability. At the same time, it may reflect the very real and ever-increasing administrative burden associated with prescribing opioids and the fact that busy oncologists may not have time to spend on this aspect of cancer care. Thus, as palliative care clinicians become more visible and numerous in the outpatient arena, oncologists may increasingly ask palliative care clinicians like myself to take this on.
The problem with this is that merely handing off the administrative burden to another clinician doesn’t address the underlying problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests (and my own experiences corroborate) this administrative burden can cause real harm. A survey of 1,000 physicians conducted by the American Medical Association in 2021 found that 93% of respondents reported a delay in patient care due to prior authorization burden and 34% of respondents reported that their patients had suffered a “serious adverse event” due to prior authorization requirements.
The CDC recently announced it will take steps to revise the 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain after hearing from members of the medical community as well as patients living with chronic pain about the harsh, unintended consequences of the guidelines. I can only hope that insurance companies will follow suit, revising their opioid prior authorization requirements to finally come into alignment with the rational, safe use of opioids in patients with advanced cancer. It’s too bad that any improvement in the future will be too late for the millions of patients who have suffered irreversible iatrogenic harms due to delays in achieving adequate pain relief.
Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.
Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic,
A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.
She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.
Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.
I send an e-prescription for the same opioid Joan’s currently taking, but in a long-acting format that will slow-release over 8-10 hours, relieving her of the need to take a medication every 3-4 hours. I have learned over the years that nearly every long-acting opioid automatically generates a prior authorization request from the patient’s insurance company and so I immediately email our prior authorization team to submit to Joan’s insurance right away to avoid this extra delay.
Our prior authorization team is exceptionally responsive and submits these requests with urgency every time – they understand that cancer pain is a serious problem and we can’t wait 5 business days for answers. They are typically able to obtain an approved prior authorization for nearly every long-acting opioid I write within 24-48 hours.
But here’s where things go sideways.
First, the insurance company denies the prior authorization request, demanding that I revise the prescription from the long-acting version of the opioid she is currently taking to a cheaper, older opioid that she’s never tried before. In other words, they won’t cover the drug I requested without Joan first trying a completely different drug and failing it. This only makes sense for the insurance company’s bottom line – it makes no clinical sense at all. Why would I try a novel compound that Joan’s never had and one to which I have no idea how she’ll respond when I could keep her on the same compound knowing that she tolerates it just fine?
Past experience tells me insurance companies rarely budge on this, and appealing the decision would just introduce even more delay of care, so I begrudgingly change the prescription and send it again to the pharmacy. I message Joan to let her know that her insurance won’t cover my drug of choice and that we have to try this older one first.
A few hours later, Joan sends me a message: “My pharmacy says it’s going to take A WEEK to get the long-acting medicine!”
In the meantime, Joan has been using her short-acting opioid faster than anticipated because of her escalating pain – so she’s now running low on that as well.
I write for more of her short-acting opioid and e-script it to her pharmacy.
Within a few hours, we get another automatic response from her insurance that we’re going to need a prior authorization for additional short-acting opioid because she’s exceeded “quantity limitations,” which as far as I can tell is a completely arbitrary number not based on clinical evidence.
The prior auth team jumps on it and submits to override the quantity limit – successfully – and sends the override code to her pharmacy to reprocess the prescription.
But now the pharmacist tells Joan that they won’t fill the Rx anyway because it’s “too early.” They tell her that “state laws” prevent them from filling the scrip.
Is this true? I have no idea. I’m not an expert on California pharmacy law. All I know is that my patient is in pain and something needs to happen quickly.
I write for a second short-acting opioid – again a completely different compound. Ironically, this Rx goes through instantly without need for prior authorization. But now Joan has to switch to another new drug for no good medical reason.
If you’re still with me this far into the weeds, I’m grateful. In all it took a combined 4 hours of work (between myself and the prior auth team) to get two opioid Rx’s filled – and these were completely different medications than the ones I originally wrote for. I also had to move her prescriptions to the hospital’s pharmacy (another inconvenience for Joan and her family) so that she could get the medications in a timely manner. All this work to ensure that a single patient had adequate and timely pain relief and to prevent her from having to make an unnecessary visit to the emergency department for pain crisis.
This is just a regular day in outpatient palliative care in the era of the opioid epidemic.
The epidemic has caused tremendous pain and suffering for millions of people over the past 2 decades – namely those lost to opioid overdoses and their loved ones. And for the most part, tightening access to opioids for routine aches and pains among a relatively healthy population is not wrong, in my opinion, as long as those restrictions are based in good faith on robust evidence.
But the hidden cost of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for nonmalignant pain, as well as the flurry of restrictive state laws they generated, is felt every day by patients with serious illness even though the guidelines were never meant to affect them. Patients with active cancer, receiving palliative care services, or at the end of life, were supposed to be exempted from these guidelines since good evidence supports the use of opioids in these populations.
Instead of preserving access to desperately needed pain medicine for those suffering with serious illness, states and insurers have aggressively sought to gatekeep opioids from everyone, resulting in stigma, delays, and needless suffering.
Several recent studies have revealed the effects of this gatekeeping on patients with cancer.
A qualitative study with 26 advanced cancer patients described the demoralization and stigma many patients felt when taking opioids, which they directly tied to media messaging around the opioid epidemic. Even when they reluctantly agreed to take opioids to treat cancer-related pain, there were systemic impediments to achieving adequate pain relief – similar to my experience with Joan – that were directly caused by insurance and pharmacy constraints.
Those of us who care for oncology patients also appear to be undertreating cancer-related pain. Another recent study that found the amount of opioid medications prescribed to an advanced cancer patient near the end of life dropped by 38% between 2007 and 2017. The authors suggest that a direct consequence of this decline in appropriate opioid prescribing is an observed 50% rise in emergency department visits over the same time period by cancer patients for pain-related reasons.
This makes sense – if patients aren’t routinely prescribed the opioids they need to manage their cancer-related pain; or, if the stigma against using opioids is so harsh that it causes patients to shun opioids; or, if there are so many system barriers in place to prevent patients from obtaining opioids in a timely manner – then patients’ pain will crescendo, leaving them with little alternative but to head to the emergency department.
This undertreatment is corroborated by another study that examined data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Part D prescriber database between 2013 and 2017, finding that both oncologists and nononcologists prescribed about 21% fewer opioids to Medicare beneficiaries during that time, compared with the period prior to 2013.
Interestingly, the researchers also found that opioid prescribing by palliative care providers increased by 15% over the same period. On a positive note, this suggests the presence of a growing outpatient palliative care workforce. But it may also reflect growing unease among oncologists with the perceived liability for prescribing opioids and a desire to ask other specialists to take on this liability. At the same time, it may reflect the very real and ever-increasing administrative burden associated with prescribing opioids and the fact that busy oncologists may not have time to spend on this aspect of cancer care. Thus, as palliative care clinicians become more visible and numerous in the outpatient arena, oncologists may increasingly ask palliative care clinicians like myself to take this on.
The problem with this is that merely handing off the administrative burden to another clinician doesn’t address the underlying problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests (and my own experiences corroborate) this administrative burden can cause real harm. A survey of 1,000 physicians conducted by the American Medical Association in 2021 found that 93% of respondents reported a delay in patient care due to prior authorization burden and 34% of respondents reported that their patients had suffered a “serious adverse event” due to prior authorization requirements.
The CDC recently announced it will take steps to revise the 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain after hearing from members of the medical community as well as patients living with chronic pain about the harsh, unintended consequences of the guidelines. I can only hope that insurance companies will follow suit, revising their opioid prior authorization requirements to finally come into alignment with the rational, safe use of opioids in patients with advanced cancer. It’s too bad that any improvement in the future will be too late for the millions of patients who have suffered irreversible iatrogenic harms due to delays in achieving adequate pain relief.
Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.
Can liquid biopsy predict oropharyngeal cancer recurrence?
PHOENIX – A liquid biopsy test may accurately predict recurrence of human papillomavirus (HPV)–driven oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) earlier than standard clinical and imaging assessments, a new analysis indicates.
Of 80 patients who tested positive for circulating tumor tissue–modified viral (TTMV)-HPV DNA during surveillance, 74% (n = 59) had no other evidence of disease or had indeterminate disease status.
And of those patients, 93% (n = 55) “later had proven recurrent, metastatic disease on imaging and/or biopsy,” according to Glenn Hanna, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who presented the results Feb. 24 at the 2022 Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancers Symposium.
“This is the first study to demonstrate broad clinical utility and validity of the biomarker in HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Hanna said in a press release.
Although patients with HPV-driven OPSCC generally have favorable outcomes, up to 25% will experience recurrence after treatment.
Post-treatment surveillance currently relies on physical examinations and imaging, but Dr. Hanna and colleagues wanted to determine whether a routine circulating cell-free TTMV-HPV DNA test could detect occult recurrence sooner.
Dr. Hanna and colleagues analyzed the records of 1,076 patients with HPV-driven OPSCC at 118 sites in the U.S. who had completed therapy more than 3 months previously and undergone an TTMV-HPV DNA test (NavDx, Naveris) between June 2020 and November 2021.
The results of the test, which used ultrasensitive digital droplet PCR to identify HPV subtypes 16, 18, 31, 33, and 35, were compared with subsequent clinical evidence of OPSCC via nasopharyngolaryngoscopy, radiologic evaluations, or tissue biopsy.
Approximately 7% of the patients tested positive (n = 80) for circulating TTMV-HPV DNA. Of those, 26.2% (n = 21) had known clinical recurrence, while 73.8% (n = 59) had no other evidence of disease or an intermediate disease status.
Among those with no clinical evidence of recurrence, 93.2% (n = 55) had their recurrence subsequently confirmed using imaging or biopsy. Of the 4 remaining patients, 2 had clinically suspicious lesions, and 2 had no other evidence of disease.
Overall, the data indicate that the biomarker test demonstrated a 95% positive predictive value (76 of 80 patients) for recurrence or persistence of HPV-driven OPSCC.
According to Dr. Hanna, a positive TTMV-HPV DNA test was the first indicator of recurrence for 72% of patients, and almost half of recurrences were detected more than 12 months after completing therapy.
“Incorporating a test for TTMV-HPV DNA into routine post-treatment follow-up can enable physicians to detect recurrent cancers earlier and allow us to start recommended interventions more quickly to improve outcomes,” Dr. Hanna said in the release.
The study was supported by Naveris, which developed the TTMV-HPV DNA test studied. Dr. Hanna declares relationships with Actuate Therapeutics, Altor BioScience, Bicara, BMS, GSK, Merck, Regeneron, Sanofi/Genzyme, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX – A liquid biopsy test may accurately predict recurrence of human papillomavirus (HPV)–driven oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) earlier than standard clinical and imaging assessments, a new analysis indicates.
Of 80 patients who tested positive for circulating tumor tissue–modified viral (TTMV)-HPV DNA during surveillance, 74% (n = 59) had no other evidence of disease or had indeterminate disease status.
And of those patients, 93% (n = 55) “later had proven recurrent, metastatic disease on imaging and/or biopsy,” according to Glenn Hanna, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who presented the results Feb. 24 at the 2022 Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancers Symposium.
“This is the first study to demonstrate broad clinical utility and validity of the biomarker in HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Hanna said in a press release.
Although patients with HPV-driven OPSCC generally have favorable outcomes, up to 25% will experience recurrence after treatment.
Post-treatment surveillance currently relies on physical examinations and imaging, but Dr. Hanna and colleagues wanted to determine whether a routine circulating cell-free TTMV-HPV DNA test could detect occult recurrence sooner.
Dr. Hanna and colleagues analyzed the records of 1,076 patients with HPV-driven OPSCC at 118 sites in the U.S. who had completed therapy more than 3 months previously and undergone an TTMV-HPV DNA test (NavDx, Naveris) between June 2020 and November 2021.
The results of the test, which used ultrasensitive digital droplet PCR to identify HPV subtypes 16, 18, 31, 33, and 35, were compared with subsequent clinical evidence of OPSCC via nasopharyngolaryngoscopy, radiologic evaluations, or tissue biopsy.
Approximately 7% of the patients tested positive (n = 80) for circulating TTMV-HPV DNA. Of those, 26.2% (n = 21) had known clinical recurrence, while 73.8% (n = 59) had no other evidence of disease or an intermediate disease status.
Among those with no clinical evidence of recurrence, 93.2% (n = 55) had their recurrence subsequently confirmed using imaging or biopsy. Of the 4 remaining patients, 2 had clinically suspicious lesions, and 2 had no other evidence of disease.
Overall, the data indicate that the biomarker test demonstrated a 95% positive predictive value (76 of 80 patients) for recurrence or persistence of HPV-driven OPSCC.
According to Dr. Hanna, a positive TTMV-HPV DNA test was the first indicator of recurrence for 72% of patients, and almost half of recurrences were detected more than 12 months after completing therapy.
“Incorporating a test for TTMV-HPV DNA into routine post-treatment follow-up can enable physicians to detect recurrent cancers earlier and allow us to start recommended interventions more quickly to improve outcomes,” Dr. Hanna said in the release.
The study was supported by Naveris, which developed the TTMV-HPV DNA test studied. Dr. Hanna declares relationships with Actuate Therapeutics, Altor BioScience, Bicara, BMS, GSK, Merck, Regeneron, Sanofi/Genzyme, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX – A liquid biopsy test may accurately predict recurrence of human papillomavirus (HPV)–driven oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) earlier than standard clinical and imaging assessments, a new analysis indicates.
Of 80 patients who tested positive for circulating tumor tissue–modified viral (TTMV)-HPV DNA during surveillance, 74% (n = 59) had no other evidence of disease or had indeterminate disease status.
And of those patients, 93% (n = 55) “later had proven recurrent, metastatic disease on imaging and/or biopsy,” according to Glenn Hanna, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who presented the results Feb. 24 at the 2022 Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancers Symposium.
“This is the first study to demonstrate broad clinical utility and validity of the biomarker in HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Hanna said in a press release.
Although patients with HPV-driven OPSCC generally have favorable outcomes, up to 25% will experience recurrence after treatment.
Post-treatment surveillance currently relies on physical examinations and imaging, but Dr. Hanna and colleagues wanted to determine whether a routine circulating cell-free TTMV-HPV DNA test could detect occult recurrence sooner.
Dr. Hanna and colleagues analyzed the records of 1,076 patients with HPV-driven OPSCC at 118 sites in the U.S. who had completed therapy more than 3 months previously and undergone an TTMV-HPV DNA test (NavDx, Naveris) between June 2020 and November 2021.
The results of the test, which used ultrasensitive digital droplet PCR to identify HPV subtypes 16, 18, 31, 33, and 35, were compared with subsequent clinical evidence of OPSCC via nasopharyngolaryngoscopy, radiologic evaluations, or tissue biopsy.
Approximately 7% of the patients tested positive (n = 80) for circulating TTMV-HPV DNA. Of those, 26.2% (n = 21) had known clinical recurrence, while 73.8% (n = 59) had no other evidence of disease or an intermediate disease status.
Among those with no clinical evidence of recurrence, 93.2% (n = 55) had their recurrence subsequently confirmed using imaging or biopsy. Of the 4 remaining patients, 2 had clinically suspicious lesions, and 2 had no other evidence of disease.
Overall, the data indicate that the biomarker test demonstrated a 95% positive predictive value (76 of 80 patients) for recurrence or persistence of HPV-driven OPSCC.
According to Dr. Hanna, a positive TTMV-HPV DNA test was the first indicator of recurrence for 72% of patients, and almost half of recurrences were detected more than 12 months after completing therapy.
“Incorporating a test for TTMV-HPV DNA into routine post-treatment follow-up can enable physicians to detect recurrent cancers earlier and allow us to start recommended interventions more quickly to improve outcomes,” Dr. Hanna said in the release.
The study was supported by Naveris, which developed the TTMV-HPV DNA test studied. Dr. Hanna declares relationships with Actuate Therapeutics, Altor BioScience, Bicara, BMS, GSK, Merck, Regeneron, Sanofi/Genzyme, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Radiofrequency ablation an option for thyroid microcarcinoma
(PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.
“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.
Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.
“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.
However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.
When active surveillance isn’t enough
Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.
Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.
In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.
Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
New meta-analysis
To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.
The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.
Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.
Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.
With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.
The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).
New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.
Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.
“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules
While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”
The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.
To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.
A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.
They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.
While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”
And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.
To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
RFA an option for some patients
In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.
“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.
The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.
“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.
Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.
“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.
However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.
When active surveillance isn’t enough
Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.
Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.
In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.
Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
New meta-analysis
To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.
The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.
Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.
Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.
With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.
The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).
New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.
Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.
“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules
While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”
The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.
To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.
A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.
They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.
While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”
And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.
To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
RFA an option for some patients
In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.
“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.
The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.
“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.
Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.
“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.
However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.
When active surveillance isn’t enough
Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.
Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.
In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.
Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
New meta-analysis
To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.
The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.
Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.
Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.
With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.
The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).
New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.
Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.
“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules
While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”
The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.
To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.
A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.
They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.
While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”
And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.
To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
RFA an option for some patients
In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.
“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.
The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Radioactive iodine therapy linked to later malignancy
, including breast cancer, according to a new analysis of the United States SEER cancer registries.
The study included data from 36,311 patients between 1975 and 2017. Among 5-year differentiated thyroid cancer survivors, over a median follow-up of 15.6 years, radioactive iodine treatment was linked to a 23% increased risk of solid tumors. Among 20-year survivors, there was a 47% increased risk in solid tumors and a 46% increased risk of breast cancer. Two-year survivors had a 51% increased risk of hematologic malignancies, including a 92% increased risk of leukemia. The researchers estimate that 6% of all solid tumors, 5% of breast tumors, and 14% of hematologic malignancies among differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have survived at least 1 year are attributable to radioactive iodine (RAI).
“Our study is not the first to show an increased risk of leukemia or solid cancer after RAI therapy, although some may be surprised about the increased risk of breast cancer, which was not observed in some earlier studies on this topic. The large size of our study, our focus on younger patients (who are more susceptible to the late effects of radiation therapy than older patients), and more than 40 years of follow-up, enabled us to provide more precise estimates of these risks. Our findings were not surprising given current understanding of the long-term, carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure,” said lead author Cari Kitahara, PhD, senior investigator in the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at National Cancer Institute. The risk estimates also are similar to previous studies of exposure to medial and nonmedical radiation sources, she added.
Although radioactive iodine has seen an increase in use for treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer, there is little evidence that it improves outcomes in localized differentiated thyroid cancer, and the American Thyroid Association guidelines recommend against radioactive iodine therapy for low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers smaller than 1 cm, and lower radiation levels for larger tumors. The pediatric guideline suggests a similar approach, except that it doesn’t discourage use of RAI in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers.
“Physicians should discuss the overall balance of risks and benefits of RAI therapy with their patients. Although RAI has been used in the management of thyroid cancer for many decades, clinical practice guidelines have changed over time and now encourage avoidance of unnecessary or excessive use of RAI therapy for low-risk tumors. Our results suggest that even greater caution and more consideration of the late effects of RAI therapy are needed for younger patients, who are more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure and are more likely to experience these long-term effects than older adults,” Dr. Kitahara said.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kitahara has no relevant financial disclosures.
, including breast cancer, according to a new analysis of the United States SEER cancer registries.
The study included data from 36,311 patients between 1975 and 2017. Among 5-year differentiated thyroid cancer survivors, over a median follow-up of 15.6 years, radioactive iodine treatment was linked to a 23% increased risk of solid tumors. Among 20-year survivors, there was a 47% increased risk in solid tumors and a 46% increased risk of breast cancer. Two-year survivors had a 51% increased risk of hematologic malignancies, including a 92% increased risk of leukemia. The researchers estimate that 6% of all solid tumors, 5% of breast tumors, and 14% of hematologic malignancies among differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have survived at least 1 year are attributable to radioactive iodine (RAI).
“Our study is not the first to show an increased risk of leukemia or solid cancer after RAI therapy, although some may be surprised about the increased risk of breast cancer, which was not observed in some earlier studies on this topic. The large size of our study, our focus on younger patients (who are more susceptible to the late effects of radiation therapy than older patients), and more than 40 years of follow-up, enabled us to provide more precise estimates of these risks. Our findings were not surprising given current understanding of the long-term, carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure,” said lead author Cari Kitahara, PhD, senior investigator in the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at National Cancer Institute. The risk estimates also are similar to previous studies of exposure to medial and nonmedical radiation sources, she added.
Although radioactive iodine has seen an increase in use for treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer, there is little evidence that it improves outcomes in localized differentiated thyroid cancer, and the American Thyroid Association guidelines recommend against radioactive iodine therapy for low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers smaller than 1 cm, and lower radiation levels for larger tumors. The pediatric guideline suggests a similar approach, except that it doesn’t discourage use of RAI in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers.
“Physicians should discuss the overall balance of risks and benefits of RAI therapy with their patients. Although RAI has been used in the management of thyroid cancer for many decades, clinical practice guidelines have changed over time and now encourage avoidance of unnecessary or excessive use of RAI therapy for low-risk tumors. Our results suggest that even greater caution and more consideration of the late effects of RAI therapy are needed for younger patients, who are more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure and are more likely to experience these long-term effects than older adults,” Dr. Kitahara said.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kitahara has no relevant financial disclosures.
, including breast cancer, according to a new analysis of the United States SEER cancer registries.
The study included data from 36,311 patients between 1975 and 2017. Among 5-year differentiated thyroid cancer survivors, over a median follow-up of 15.6 years, radioactive iodine treatment was linked to a 23% increased risk of solid tumors. Among 20-year survivors, there was a 47% increased risk in solid tumors and a 46% increased risk of breast cancer. Two-year survivors had a 51% increased risk of hematologic malignancies, including a 92% increased risk of leukemia. The researchers estimate that 6% of all solid tumors, 5% of breast tumors, and 14% of hematologic malignancies among differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have survived at least 1 year are attributable to radioactive iodine (RAI).
“Our study is not the first to show an increased risk of leukemia or solid cancer after RAI therapy, although some may be surprised about the increased risk of breast cancer, which was not observed in some earlier studies on this topic. The large size of our study, our focus on younger patients (who are more susceptible to the late effects of radiation therapy than older patients), and more than 40 years of follow-up, enabled us to provide more precise estimates of these risks. Our findings were not surprising given current understanding of the long-term, carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure,” said lead author Cari Kitahara, PhD, senior investigator in the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at National Cancer Institute. The risk estimates also are similar to previous studies of exposure to medial and nonmedical radiation sources, she added.
Although radioactive iodine has seen an increase in use for treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer, there is little evidence that it improves outcomes in localized differentiated thyroid cancer, and the American Thyroid Association guidelines recommend against radioactive iodine therapy for low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers smaller than 1 cm, and lower radiation levels for larger tumors. The pediatric guideline suggests a similar approach, except that it doesn’t discourage use of RAI in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers.
“Physicians should discuss the overall balance of risks and benefits of RAI therapy with their patients. Although RAI has been used in the management of thyroid cancer for many decades, clinical practice guidelines have changed over time and now encourage avoidance of unnecessary or excessive use of RAI therapy for low-risk tumors. Our results suggest that even greater caution and more consideration of the late effects of RAI therapy are needed for younger patients, who are more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure and are more likely to experience these long-term effects than older adults,” Dr. Kitahara said.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kitahara has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Nedaplatin chemo proves to be a less toxic option for nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma who were treated with nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, achieved 5-year survival rates comparable to those of patients treated with cisplatin chemoradiotherapy, but with fewer toxic effects, shows a study in JAMA Network Open.
The findings confirm that , wrote authors who were led by Lin-Quan Tang, MD, PhD, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
While the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends radiotherapy administered concurrently with 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin every 3 weeks for patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the addition of cisplatin-based chemotherapy to radiotherapy increases the frequency of treatment-related toxic effects. They include severe gastrointestinal responses, hearing deficits, renal toxic effects, and neurotoxic effects, decreasing treatment adherence and patient quality of life. An antitumor drug with similar therapeutic efficacy to cisplatin but with reduced adverse effects is needed urgently, authors wrote.
The cisplatin analogue nedaplatin, designed to decrease the nephrotoxic and gastrointestinal toxic effects seen with cisplatin, has antitumor mechanisms and efficacy similar to cisplatin. It has demonstrated effectiveness and tolerability in various malignant tumors, and has, in vitro, shown potential as a radiosensitizing agent with nasopharyngeal carcinoma and cervical squamous cell carcinoma cells.
In the initial 2-year results of the phase 3 randomized trial in this population of patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy was noninferior to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy with differences of 1.9% and 1.0% (P = .005 and P = .002), in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses of progression-free survival, respectively. Patients (n = 402) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nedaplatin (100 mg/m2)– or cisplatin (100 mg/m2)–based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Information on long-term follow-up and late toxic effects was limited.
In the current analysis of 402 patients (about 25% female, median age 44.5 years), the intention-to-treat 5-year progression-free survival rate was 81.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-86.9%) for the cisplatin group and 79.8% (95% CI, 74.1%-85.5%) for the nedaplatin group, with a difference of 1.6% (95% CI, −6.3% to 9.5%; P = .002 for noninferiority). No significant survival differences were observed between the cisplatin and nedaplatin groups for 5-year overall survival (89.4% vs. 88.8%; P = .63), distant metastasis–free survival (85.9% vs. 90.4%, P = .17), and locoregional relapse–free survival (92.6% vs. 89.6%; P = .17) rates.
The incidence of grade 3 and 4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group than in the nedaplatin group (35 [17.7%] vs. 21 [10.5%], P = .04). Also, the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group versus patients in the nedaplatin group (19.9% vs. 12.0%; P = .42). The odds ratio, in a post hoc regression analysis, for auditory toxic effects was 0.51 (0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93; P = .03) for patients in the nedaplatin group.
The findings, the authors concluded, confirm that nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy could be an alternative to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy as doublet therapy for II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The potential of nedaplatin in combination drug chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the induction or adjuvant phase needs to be explored in further investigations, the authors added.
The study was funded by multiple grants; the study investigator reported no conflicts of interest.
Patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma who were treated with nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, achieved 5-year survival rates comparable to those of patients treated with cisplatin chemoradiotherapy, but with fewer toxic effects, shows a study in JAMA Network Open.
The findings confirm that , wrote authors who were led by Lin-Quan Tang, MD, PhD, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
While the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends radiotherapy administered concurrently with 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin every 3 weeks for patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the addition of cisplatin-based chemotherapy to radiotherapy increases the frequency of treatment-related toxic effects. They include severe gastrointestinal responses, hearing deficits, renal toxic effects, and neurotoxic effects, decreasing treatment adherence and patient quality of life. An antitumor drug with similar therapeutic efficacy to cisplatin but with reduced adverse effects is needed urgently, authors wrote.
The cisplatin analogue nedaplatin, designed to decrease the nephrotoxic and gastrointestinal toxic effects seen with cisplatin, has antitumor mechanisms and efficacy similar to cisplatin. It has demonstrated effectiveness and tolerability in various malignant tumors, and has, in vitro, shown potential as a radiosensitizing agent with nasopharyngeal carcinoma and cervical squamous cell carcinoma cells.
In the initial 2-year results of the phase 3 randomized trial in this population of patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy was noninferior to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy with differences of 1.9% and 1.0% (P = .005 and P = .002), in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses of progression-free survival, respectively. Patients (n = 402) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nedaplatin (100 mg/m2)– or cisplatin (100 mg/m2)–based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Information on long-term follow-up and late toxic effects was limited.
In the current analysis of 402 patients (about 25% female, median age 44.5 years), the intention-to-treat 5-year progression-free survival rate was 81.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-86.9%) for the cisplatin group and 79.8% (95% CI, 74.1%-85.5%) for the nedaplatin group, with a difference of 1.6% (95% CI, −6.3% to 9.5%; P = .002 for noninferiority). No significant survival differences were observed between the cisplatin and nedaplatin groups for 5-year overall survival (89.4% vs. 88.8%; P = .63), distant metastasis–free survival (85.9% vs. 90.4%, P = .17), and locoregional relapse–free survival (92.6% vs. 89.6%; P = .17) rates.
The incidence of grade 3 and 4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group than in the nedaplatin group (35 [17.7%] vs. 21 [10.5%], P = .04). Also, the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group versus patients in the nedaplatin group (19.9% vs. 12.0%; P = .42). The odds ratio, in a post hoc regression analysis, for auditory toxic effects was 0.51 (0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93; P = .03) for patients in the nedaplatin group.
The findings, the authors concluded, confirm that nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy could be an alternative to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy as doublet therapy for II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The potential of nedaplatin in combination drug chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the induction or adjuvant phase needs to be explored in further investigations, the authors added.
The study was funded by multiple grants; the study investigator reported no conflicts of interest.
Patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma who were treated with nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, achieved 5-year survival rates comparable to those of patients treated with cisplatin chemoradiotherapy, but with fewer toxic effects, shows a study in JAMA Network Open.
The findings confirm that , wrote authors who were led by Lin-Quan Tang, MD, PhD, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
While the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends radiotherapy administered concurrently with 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin every 3 weeks for patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the addition of cisplatin-based chemotherapy to radiotherapy increases the frequency of treatment-related toxic effects. They include severe gastrointestinal responses, hearing deficits, renal toxic effects, and neurotoxic effects, decreasing treatment adherence and patient quality of life. An antitumor drug with similar therapeutic efficacy to cisplatin but with reduced adverse effects is needed urgently, authors wrote.
The cisplatin analogue nedaplatin, designed to decrease the nephrotoxic and gastrointestinal toxic effects seen with cisplatin, has antitumor mechanisms and efficacy similar to cisplatin. It has demonstrated effectiveness and tolerability in various malignant tumors, and has, in vitro, shown potential as a radiosensitizing agent with nasopharyngeal carcinoma and cervical squamous cell carcinoma cells.
In the initial 2-year results of the phase 3 randomized trial in this population of patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy was noninferior to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy with differences of 1.9% and 1.0% (P = .005 and P = .002), in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses of progression-free survival, respectively. Patients (n = 402) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nedaplatin (100 mg/m2)– or cisplatin (100 mg/m2)–based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Information on long-term follow-up and late toxic effects was limited.
In the current analysis of 402 patients (about 25% female, median age 44.5 years), the intention-to-treat 5-year progression-free survival rate was 81.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-86.9%) for the cisplatin group and 79.8% (95% CI, 74.1%-85.5%) for the nedaplatin group, with a difference of 1.6% (95% CI, −6.3% to 9.5%; P = .002 for noninferiority). No significant survival differences were observed between the cisplatin and nedaplatin groups for 5-year overall survival (89.4% vs. 88.8%; P = .63), distant metastasis–free survival (85.9% vs. 90.4%, P = .17), and locoregional relapse–free survival (92.6% vs. 89.6%; P = .17) rates.
The incidence of grade 3 and 4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group than in the nedaplatin group (35 [17.7%] vs. 21 [10.5%], P = .04). Also, the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group versus patients in the nedaplatin group (19.9% vs. 12.0%; P = .42). The odds ratio, in a post hoc regression analysis, for auditory toxic effects was 0.51 (0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93; P = .03) for patients in the nedaplatin group.
The findings, the authors concluded, confirm that nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy could be an alternative to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy as doublet therapy for II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The potential of nedaplatin in combination drug chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the induction or adjuvant phase needs to be explored in further investigations, the authors added.
The study was funded by multiple grants; the study investigator reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN