Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the Gardasil-9 (Merck) vaccine to include prevention of oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers caused by HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.

This new indication is approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval program and is based on the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing HPV-related anogenital disease. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory clinical trial, which is currently underway.

“At Merck, working to help prevent certain HPV-related cancers has been a priority for more than two decades,” Alain Luxembourg, MD, director, clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories, said in a statement. “Today’s approval for the prevention of HPV-related oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers represents an important step in Merck’s mission to help reduce the number of men and women affected by certain HPV-related cancers.”

This new indication doesn’t affect the current recommendations that are already in place. In 2018, a supplemental application for Gardasil 9 was approved to include women and men aged 27 through 45 years for preventing a variety of cancers including cervical, vulvar, vaginal, and anal cancer as well as genital warts. But cancers of the head and neck were not included.

The original Gardasil vaccine came on the market in 2006, with an indication to prevent certain cancers and diseases caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18. It is no longer distributed in the United States.

In 2014, the FDA approved Gardasil 9, which extends the vaccine coverage for the initial four HPV types as five additional types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58), and its initial indication was for use in both men and women between the ages of 9 through 26 years.
 

Head and neck cancers surpass cervical cancer

More than 2 decades ago, researchers first found a connection between HPV and a subset of head and neck cancers (Curr Opin Oncol. 1999;11(3):191-199). The cancers associated with HPV also appeared to have a different biology and disease pattern, as well as a better prognosis, compared with those that were unrelated. HPV is now responsible for the majority of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers diagnosed in the United States.

A study published last year found that oral HPV infections were occurring with significantly less frequency among sexually active female adolescents who had received the quadrivalent vaccine, as compared with those who were unvaccinated.

These findings provided evidence that HPV vaccination was associated with a reduced frequency of HPV infection in the oral cavity, suggesting that vaccination could decrease the future risk of HPV-associated head and neck cancers.

The omission of head and neck cancers from the initial list of indications for the vaccine is notable because, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), oropharyngeal cancers are now the most common malignancy caused by HPV, surpassing cervical cancer.
 

Who will benefit?

An estimated 14 million new HPV infections occur every year in the United States, according to the CDC, and about 80% of individuals who are sexually active have been exposed at some point during their lifetime. In most people, however, the virus will clear on its own without causing any illness or symptoms.

In a Medscape videoblog, Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, MACP, FRCP, helped clarify the adult population most likely to benefit from the vaccine. She pointed out that the HPV vaccine doesn’t treat HPV-related disease or help clear infections, and there are currently no clinical antibody tests or titers that can predict immunity.

“Many adults aged 27-45 have already been exposed to HPV early in life,” she said. Those in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship are not likely to get a new HPV infection. Those with multiple prior sex partners are more likely to have already been exposed to vaccine serotypes. For them, the vaccine will be less effective.”

Fryhofer added that individuals who are now at risk for exposure to a new HPV infection from a new sex partner are the ones most likely to benefit from HPV vaccination.
 

Confirmation needed

The FDA’s accelerated approval is contingent on confirmatory data, and Merck opened a clinical trial this past February to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men 20 to 45 years of age. The phase 3 multicenter randomized trial will have an estimated enrollment of 6000 men.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the Gardasil-9 (Merck) vaccine to include prevention of oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers caused by HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.

This new indication is approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval program and is based on the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing HPV-related anogenital disease. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory clinical trial, which is currently underway.

“At Merck, working to help prevent certain HPV-related cancers has been a priority for more than two decades,” Alain Luxembourg, MD, director, clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories, said in a statement. “Today’s approval for the prevention of HPV-related oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers represents an important step in Merck’s mission to help reduce the number of men and women affected by certain HPV-related cancers.”

This new indication doesn’t affect the current recommendations that are already in place. In 2018, a supplemental application for Gardasil 9 was approved to include women and men aged 27 through 45 years for preventing a variety of cancers including cervical, vulvar, vaginal, and anal cancer as well as genital warts. But cancers of the head and neck were not included.

The original Gardasil vaccine came on the market in 2006, with an indication to prevent certain cancers and diseases caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18. It is no longer distributed in the United States.

In 2014, the FDA approved Gardasil 9, which extends the vaccine coverage for the initial four HPV types as five additional types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58), and its initial indication was for use in both men and women between the ages of 9 through 26 years.
 

Head and neck cancers surpass cervical cancer

More than 2 decades ago, researchers first found a connection between HPV and a subset of head and neck cancers (Curr Opin Oncol. 1999;11(3):191-199). The cancers associated with HPV also appeared to have a different biology and disease pattern, as well as a better prognosis, compared with those that were unrelated. HPV is now responsible for the majority of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers diagnosed in the United States.

A study published last year found that oral HPV infections were occurring with significantly less frequency among sexually active female adolescents who had received the quadrivalent vaccine, as compared with those who were unvaccinated.

These findings provided evidence that HPV vaccination was associated with a reduced frequency of HPV infection in the oral cavity, suggesting that vaccination could decrease the future risk of HPV-associated head and neck cancers.

The omission of head and neck cancers from the initial list of indications for the vaccine is notable because, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), oropharyngeal cancers are now the most common malignancy caused by HPV, surpassing cervical cancer.
 

Who will benefit?

An estimated 14 million new HPV infections occur every year in the United States, according to the CDC, and about 80% of individuals who are sexually active have been exposed at some point during their lifetime. In most people, however, the virus will clear on its own without causing any illness or symptoms.

In a Medscape videoblog, Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, MACP, FRCP, helped clarify the adult population most likely to benefit from the vaccine. She pointed out that the HPV vaccine doesn’t treat HPV-related disease or help clear infections, and there are currently no clinical antibody tests or titers that can predict immunity.

“Many adults aged 27-45 have already been exposed to HPV early in life,” she said. Those in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship are not likely to get a new HPV infection. Those with multiple prior sex partners are more likely to have already been exposed to vaccine serotypes. For them, the vaccine will be less effective.”

Fryhofer added that individuals who are now at risk for exposure to a new HPV infection from a new sex partner are the ones most likely to benefit from HPV vaccination.
 

Confirmation needed

The FDA’s accelerated approval is contingent on confirmatory data, and Merck opened a clinical trial this past February to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men 20 to 45 years of age. The phase 3 multicenter randomized trial will have an estimated enrollment of 6000 men.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the Gardasil-9 (Merck) vaccine to include prevention of oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers caused by HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.

This new indication is approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval program and is based on the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing HPV-related anogenital disease. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory clinical trial, which is currently underway.

“At Merck, working to help prevent certain HPV-related cancers has been a priority for more than two decades,” Alain Luxembourg, MD, director, clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories, said in a statement. “Today’s approval for the prevention of HPV-related oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers represents an important step in Merck’s mission to help reduce the number of men and women affected by certain HPV-related cancers.”

This new indication doesn’t affect the current recommendations that are already in place. In 2018, a supplemental application for Gardasil 9 was approved to include women and men aged 27 through 45 years for preventing a variety of cancers including cervical, vulvar, vaginal, and anal cancer as well as genital warts. But cancers of the head and neck were not included.

The original Gardasil vaccine came on the market in 2006, with an indication to prevent certain cancers and diseases caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18. It is no longer distributed in the United States.

In 2014, the FDA approved Gardasil 9, which extends the vaccine coverage for the initial four HPV types as five additional types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58), and its initial indication was for use in both men and women between the ages of 9 through 26 years.
 

Head and neck cancers surpass cervical cancer

More than 2 decades ago, researchers first found a connection between HPV and a subset of head and neck cancers (Curr Opin Oncol. 1999;11(3):191-199). The cancers associated with HPV also appeared to have a different biology and disease pattern, as well as a better prognosis, compared with those that were unrelated. HPV is now responsible for the majority of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers diagnosed in the United States.

A study published last year found that oral HPV infections were occurring with significantly less frequency among sexually active female adolescents who had received the quadrivalent vaccine, as compared with those who were unvaccinated.

These findings provided evidence that HPV vaccination was associated with a reduced frequency of HPV infection in the oral cavity, suggesting that vaccination could decrease the future risk of HPV-associated head and neck cancers.

The omission of head and neck cancers from the initial list of indications for the vaccine is notable because, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), oropharyngeal cancers are now the most common malignancy caused by HPV, surpassing cervical cancer.
 

Who will benefit?

An estimated 14 million new HPV infections occur every year in the United States, according to the CDC, and about 80% of individuals who are sexually active have been exposed at some point during their lifetime. In most people, however, the virus will clear on its own without causing any illness or symptoms.

In a Medscape videoblog, Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, MACP, FRCP, helped clarify the adult population most likely to benefit from the vaccine. She pointed out that the HPV vaccine doesn’t treat HPV-related disease or help clear infections, and there are currently no clinical antibody tests or titers that can predict immunity.

“Many adults aged 27-45 have already been exposed to HPV early in life,” she said. Those in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship are not likely to get a new HPV infection. Those with multiple prior sex partners are more likely to have already been exposed to vaccine serotypes. For them, the vaccine will be less effective.”

Fryhofer added that individuals who are now at risk for exposure to a new HPV infection from a new sex partner are the ones most likely to benefit from HPV vaccination.
 

Confirmation needed

The FDA’s accelerated approval is contingent on confirmatory data, and Merck opened a clinical trial this past February to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men 20 to 45 years of age. The phase 3 multicenter randomized trial will have an estimated enrollment of 6000 men.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.

These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.

The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.

Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.

“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.

Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”

He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”

Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.

Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.

Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
 

‘Contentious issue’

In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”

One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.

For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”

Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m² plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”

He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.

His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.

The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.

They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m² CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m² CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.

For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.

The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).

The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m^2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m².

The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).

As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.

The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).

Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).

On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.

There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.

The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.

The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.

Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.

Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.

Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.

These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.

The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.

Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.

“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.

Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”

He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”

Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.

Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.

Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
 

‘Contentious issue’

In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”

One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.

For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”

Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m² plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”

He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.

His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.

The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.

They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m² CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m² CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.

For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.

The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).

The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m^2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m².

The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).

As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.

The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).

Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).

On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.

There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.

The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.

The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.

Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.

Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.

Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.

These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.

The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.

Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.

“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.

Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”

He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”

Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.

Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.

Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
 

‘Contentious issue’

In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”

One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.

For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”

Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m² plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”

He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.

His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.

The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.

They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m² CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m² CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.

For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.

The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).

The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m^2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m².

The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).

As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.

The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).

Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).

On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.

There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.

The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.

The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.

Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.

Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.

Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for use in certain patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The checkpoint inhibitor is now approved to treat patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC who previously received fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Researchers tested nivolumab in this population in the ATTRACTION-3 trial (NCT02569242). The trial enrolled 419 patients.

The patients were randomized to receive nivolumab at 240 mg via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks (n = 210) or investigator’s choice of taxane chemotherapy (n = 209), which consisted of docetaxel (75 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks) or paclitaxel (100 mg/m² intravenously once a week for 6 weeks followed by 1 week off).

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival but not progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months in the nivolumab arm and 3.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.1).

The median overall survival was 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm and 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .0189). The overall survival benefit was observed regardless of tumor programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

Response rates were similar between the treatment arms, but responses were more durable with nivolumab. The overall responses rate was 19.3% in the nivolumab arm and 21.5% in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of response was 6.9 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

Serious adverse events were reported in 38% of patients in the nivolumab arm. Serious adverse events occurring in at least 2% of patients were pneumonia, esophageal fistula, interstitial lung disease, and pyrexia.

Adverse events prompted 13% of patients to discontinue nivolumab and 27% to delay nivolumab treatment.

Fatal adverse events in patients on nivolumab included interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.0%), septic shock (0.5%), esophageal fistula (0.5%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.5%), pulmonary embolism (0.5%), and sudden death (0.5%).

The recommended dose of nivolumab for ESCC is 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. For more details, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for use in certain patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The checkpoint inhibitor is now approved to treat patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC who previously received fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Researchers tested nivolumab in this population in the ATTRACTION-3 trial (NCT02569242). The trial enrolled 419 patients.

The patients were randomized to receive nivolumab at 240 mg via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks (n = 210) or investigator’s choice of taxane chemotherapy (n = 209), which consisted of docetaxel (75 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks) or paclitaxel (100 mg/m² intravenously once a week for 6 weeks followed by 1 week off).

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival but not progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months in the nivolumab arm and 3.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.1).

The median overall survival was 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm and 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .0189). The overall survival benefit was observed regardless of tumor programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

Response rates were similar between the treatment arms, but responses were more durable with nivolumab. The overall responses rate was 19.3% in the nivolumab arm and 21.5% in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of response was 6.9 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

Serious adverse events were reported in 38% of patients in the nivolumab arm. Serious adverse events occurring in at least 2% of patients were pneumonia, esophageal fistula, interstitial lung disease, and pyrexia.

Adverse events prompted 13% of patients to discontinue nivolumab and 27% to delay nivolumab treatment.

Fatal adverse events in patients on nivolumab included interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.0%), septic shock (0.5%), esophageal fistula (0.5%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.5%), pulmonary embolism (0.5%), and sudden death (0.5%).

The recommended dose of nivolumab for ESCC is 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. For more details, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for use in certain patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The checkpoint inhibitor is now approved to treat patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC who previously received fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Researchers tested nivolumab in this population in the ATTRACTION-3 trial (NCT02569242). The trial enrolled 419 patients.

The patients were randomized to receive nivolumab at 240 mg via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks (n = 210) or investigator’s choice of taxane chemotherapy (n = 209), which consisted of docetaxel (75 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks) or paclitaxel (100 mg/m² intravenously once a week for 6 weeks followed by 1 week off).

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival but not progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months in the nivolumab arm and 3.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.1).

The median overall survival was 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm and 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .0189). The overall survival benefit was observed regardless of tumor programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

Response rates were similar between the treatment arms, but responses were more durable with nivolumab. The overall responses rate was 19.3% in the nivolumab arm and 21.5% in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of response was 6.9 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

Serious adverse events were reported in 38% of patients in the nivolumab arm. Serious adverse events occurring in at least 2% of patients were pneumonia, esophageal fistula, interstitial lung disease, and pyrexia.

Adverse events prompted 13% of patients to discontinue nivolumab and 27% to delay nivolumab treatment.

Fatal adverse events in patients on nivolumab included interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.0%), septic shock (0.5%), esophageal fistula (0.5%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.5%), pulmonary embolism (0.5%), and sudden death (0.5%).

The recommended dose of nivolumab for ESCC is 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. For more details, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence that has occurred since the 1990s – considered an “epidemic of overdiagnosis,” has extended beyond high-income countries to less affluent settings, where unnecessary – and sometimes opportunistic – screening could continue to thrive.

“The impact of overdiagnosis on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer highlighted in our report is a warning sign for countries with growing economies, where diagnostic technologies are increasingly and routinely offered, usually in exchange for payment, despite evidence that the harms far outweigh benefits,” the authors say.

“Overdiagnosis could turn healthy people into patients, and expose them to unnecessary harms and lifelong treatments,” say Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues in their article published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

With their previous research showing high rates of overdiagnosis in high-income countries, for this new analysis, they sought to evaluate whether similar patterns were occurring in less affluent settings.

They examined data from population-based cancer registries in 26 countries on four continents, looking at all cases of thyroid cancer reported between 1998 and 2012 in men and women aged 15 to 84 years.
 

A global public health problem

The results showed that while the incidence of thyroid cancer steadily increased from 1998 to 2002 and from 2008 to 2012 in all high-income countries, similar trends were also seen in less affluent nations, particularly in Belarus, China, Colombia, and Lithuania.

The increases were consistently greater among middle-aged women aged 35-64 years in all countries.

To determine what proportion of the higher incidence was overdiagnosis, the authors turned to historic age-specific thyroid cancer incidence data prior to the introduction of ultrasound and then looked at the progressive departure from that pattern, likely the result of the increased detection by ultrasound of thyroid nodules in middle-aged adults.

The results showed the proportion of thyroid cancer cases in women estimated to be attributable to overdiagnosis between 2008 and 2012 was as much as 93% in South Korea, 91% in Belarus, 87% in China, 84% in Italy and Croatia, and 83% in Slovakia and France.

Proportions attributable to overdiagnosis were lower in Denmark (66%), Norway (65%), Ireland (63%), United Kingdom (58%), Japan (55%), and Thailand (44%).

Women were much more likely to be overdiagnosed than men, with an approximate ratio of 3:1 in all countries; however, mortality and prevalence of thyroid cancer in autopsies were similar between genders.

Although researchers only looked at data up until 2012, Dr. Li said that, even in that year, “the amplitude of the phenomenon” was “already large and is increasing rapidly over time.”

Figures for periods subsequent to those assessed in the study “are likely to be higher.”

And the overdiagnosis is particularly remarkable in the context of the true risk of thyroid cancer, senior author Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, told this news organization.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this. Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

“Currently, it is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women of all ages and is third in women under 50 years of age. And the rates are still rising fast.”

“Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer is still rapidly expanding in many high-income countries, and for the first time, we document and quantify the phenomenon also for several middle-income socioeconomically transitioning countries,” he observed. “In short, it is a global public health problem.”

Guidelines, physicians: No symptoms should mean no screening

With the implications of overdiagnosis ranging from physical, psychological in terms of the patient, and significant personal as well as societal costs, most international guidelines explicitly recommend against screening asymptomatic individuals and call for active surveillance of microcarcinomas that are detected.

The messaging appears to be making a difference.

As reported in research by American authors discussing the thyroid cancer epidemic from a 2017 perspective, the overdiagnosis situation in South Korea prompted a group of physicians there to make a high-profile public appeal in print and on television recommending against thyroid screening with ultrasound.

The result was a 35% reduction in the number of thyroidectomies performed in the subsequent year.

“This seems to be a striking example that the issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment resonates with patients, and that public awareness can lead to changes in behavior,” say the U.S. authors of that article.

Senior author Louise Davies, MD, of the VA Outcomes Group, in White River Junction, Vt., said in an interview that the new study sheds more light on this issue.

“Even though the data only go through 2012, I think they give a nice snapshot of what’s happening across the globe with thyroid cancer incidence in countries of different levels of development,” she said.

The findings underscore that “it’s important that people are educated about the limits of medical testing and that sometimes when we see abnormalities we are truly catching a cancer early, but sometimes we’re seeing things that have been there a long time and may not change or become a problem in the future,” Dr. Davies remarked.
 

Important to know what size of cancers are being detected

One particular concern about overdiagnosis in middle-income countries is that the common approach of active monitoring may be more difficult in these settings, Dr. Davies added.

“In order to manage overdiagnosis, the health care systems in those countries have to think about whether they have the infrastructure for active monitoring and whether the patients will show up for the monitoring – so that’s a challenge.”

Also, she noted that the new study does not detail the size of cancers detected.

“We don’t know much about the size of the cancers being detected and whether these are truly the small asymptomatic cancers that we are worried about being overdiagnosed.”

“Probably, at least some of what we’re seeing is appropriate detection of cancers that, before there was economic development, were in fact being missed and people were dying of,” she said.

“So while overdiagnosis can be occurring, some of this represents better detection of disease overall, and that’s a good thing actually.”

The authors and Dr. Davies have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence that has occurred since the 1990s – considered an “epidemic of overdiagnosis,” has extended beyond high-income countries to less affluent settings, where unnecessary – and sometimes opportunistic – screening could continue to thrive.

“The impact of overdiagnosis on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer highlighted in our report is a warning sign for countries with growing economies, where diagnostic technologies are increasingly and routinely offered, usually in exchange for payment, despite evidence that the harms far outweigh benefits,” the authors say.

“Overdiagnosis could turn healthy people into patients, and expose them to unnecessary harms and lifelong treatments,” say Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues in their article published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

With their previous research showing high rates of overdiagnosis in high-income countries, for this new analysis, they sought to evaluate whether similar patterns were occurring in less affluent settings.

They examined data from population-based cancer registries in 26 countries on four continents, looking at all cases of thyroid cancer reported between 1998 and 2012 in men and women aged 15 to 84 years.
 

A global public health problem

The results showed that while the incidence of thyroid cancer steadily increased from 1998 to 2002 and from 2008 to 2012 in all high-income countries, similar trends were also seen in less affluent nations, particularly in Belarus, China, Colombia, and Lithuania.

The increases were consistently greater among middle-aged women aged 35-64 years in all countries.

To determine what proportion of the higher incidence was overdiagnosis, the authors turned to historic age-specific thyroid cancer incidence data prior to the introduction of ultrasound and then looked at the progressive departure from that pattern, likely the result of the increased detection by ultrasound of thyroid nodules in middle-aged adults.

The results showed the proportion of thyroid cancer cases in women estimated to be attributable to overdiagnosis between 2008 and 2012 was as much as 93% in South Korea, 91% in Belarus, 87% in China, 84% in Italy and Croatia, and 83% in Slovakia and France.

Proportions attributable to overdiagnosis were lower in Denmark (66%), Norway (65%), Ireland (63%), United Kingdom (58%), Japan (55%), and Thailand (44%).

Women were much more likely to be overdiagnosed than men, with an approximate ratio of 3:1 in all countries; however, mortality and prevalence of thyroid cancer in autopsies were similar between genders.

Although researchers only looked at data up until 2012, Dr. Li said that, even in that year, “the amplitude of the phenomenon” was “already large and is increasing rapidly over time.”

Figures for periods subsequent to those assessed in the study “are likely to be higher.”

And the overdiagnosis is particularly remarkable in the context of the true risk of thyroid cancer, senior author Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, told this news organization.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this. Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

“Currently, it is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women of all ages and is third in women under 50 years of age. And the rates are still rising fast.”

“Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer is still rapidly expanding in many high-income countries, and for the first time, we document and quantify the phenomenon also for several middle-income socioeconomically transitioning countries,” he observed. “In short, it is a global public health problem.”

Guidelines, physicians: No symptoms should mean no screening

With the implications of overdiagnosis ranging from physical, psychological in terms of the patient, and significant personal as well as societal costs, most international guidelines explicitly recommend against screening asymptomatic individuals and call for active surveillance of microcarcinomas that are detected.

The messaging appears to be making a difference.

As reported in research by American authors discussing the thyroid cancer epidemic from a 2017 perspective, the overdiagnosis situation in South Korea prompted a group of physicians there to make a high-profile public appeal in print and on television recommending against thyroid screening with ultrasound.

The result was a 35% reduction in the number of thyroidectomies performed in the subsequent year.

“This seems to be a striking example that the issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment resonates with patients, and that public awareness can lead to changes in behavior,” say the U.S. authors of that article.

Senior author Louise Davies, MD, of the VA Outcomes Group, in White River Junction, Vt., said in an interview that the new study sheds more light on this issue.

“Even though the data only go through 2012, I think they give a nice snapshot of what’s happening across the globe with thyroid cancer incidence in countries of different levels of development,” she said.

The findings underscore that “it’s important that people are educated about the limits of medical testing and that sometimes when we see abnormalities we are truly catching a cancer early, but sometimes we’re seeing things that have been there a long time and may not change or become a problem in the future,” Dr. Davies remarked.
 

Important to know what size of cancers are being detected

One particular concern about overdiagnosis in middle-income countries is that the common approach of active monitoring may be more difficult in these settings, Dr. Davies added.

“In order to manage overdiagnosis, the health care systems in those countries have to think about whether they have the infrastructure for active monitoring and whether the patients will show up for the monitoring – so that’s a challenge.”

Also, she noted that the new study does not detail the size of cancers detected.

“We don’t know much about the size of the cancers being detected and whether these are truly the small asymptomatic cancers that we are worried about being overdiagnosed.”

“Probably, at least some of what we’re seeing is appropriate detection of cancers that, before there was economic development, were in fact being missed and people were dying of,” she said.

“So while overdiagnosis can be occurring, some of this represents better detection of disease overall, and that’s a good thing actually.”

The authors and Dr. Davies have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence that has occurred since the 1990s – considered an “epidemic of overdiagnosis,” has extended beyond high-income countries to less affluent settings, where unnecessary – and sometimes opportunistic – screening could continue to thrive.

“The impact of overdiagnosis on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer highlighted in our report is a warning sign for countries with growing economies, where diagnostic technologies are increasingly and routinely offered, usually in exchange for payment, despite evidence that the harms far outweigh benefits,” the authors say.

“Overdiagnosis could turn healthy people into patients, and expose them to unnecessary harms and lifelong treatments,” say Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues in their article published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

With their previous research showing high rates of overdiagnosis in high-income countries, for this new analysis, they sought to evaluate whether similar patterns were occurring in less affluent settings.

They examined data from population-based cancer registries in 26 countries on four continents, looking at all cases of thyroid cancer reported between 1998 and 2012 in men and women aged 15 to 84 years.
 

A global public health problem

The results showed that while the incidence of thyroid cancer steadily increased from 1998 to 2002 and from 2008 to 2012 in all high-income countries, similar trends were also seen in less affluent nations, particularly in Belarus, China, Colombia, and Lithuania.

The increases were consistently greater among middle-aged women aged 35-64 years in all countries.

To determine what proportion of the higher incidence was overdiagnosis, the authors turned to historic age-specific thyroid cancer incidence data prior to the introduction of ultrasound and then looked at the progressive departure from that pattern, likely the result of the increased detection by ultrasound of thyroid nodules in middle-aged adults.

The results showed the proportion of thyroid cancer cases in women estimated to be attributable to overdiagnosis between 2008 and 2012 was as much as 93% in South Korea, 91% in Belarus, 87% in China, 84% in Italy and Croatia, and 83% in Slovakia and France.

Proportions attributable to overdiagnosis were lower in Denmark (66%), Norway (65%), Ireland (63%), United Kingdom (58%), Japan (55%), and Thailand (44%).

Women were much more likely to be overdiagnosed than men, with an approximate ratio of 3:1 in all countries; however, mortality and prevalence of thyroid cancer in autopsies were similar between genders.

Although researchers only looked at data up until 2012, Dr. Li said that, even in that year, “the amplitude of the phenomenon” was “already large and is increasing rapidly over time.”

Figures for periods subsequent to those assessed in the study “are likely to be higher.”

And the overdiagnosis is particularly remarkable in the context of the true risk of thyroid cancer, senior author Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, told this news organization.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this. Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

“Currently, it is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women of all ages and is third in women under 50 years of age. And the rates are still rising fast.”

“Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer is still rapidly expanding in many high-income countries, and for the first time, we document and quantify the phenomenon also for several middle-income socioeconomically transitioning countries,” he observed. “In short, it is a global public health problem.”

Guidelines, physicians: No symptoms should mean no screening

With the implications of overdiagnosis ranging from physical, psychological in terms of the patient, and significant personal as well as societal costs, most international guidelines explicitly recommend against screening asymptomatic individuals and call for active surveillance of microcarcinomas that are detected.

The messaging appears to be making a difference.

As reported in research by American authors discussing the thyroid cancer epidemic from a 2017 perspective, the overdiagnosis situation in South Korea prompted a group of physicians there to make a high-profile public appeal in print and on television recommending against thyroid screening with ultrasound.

The result was a 35% reduction in the number of thyroidectomies performed in the subsequent year.

“This seems to be a striking example that the issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment resonates with patients, and that public awareness can lead to changes in behavior,” say the U.S. authors of that article.

Senior author Louise Davies, MD, of the VA Outcomes Group, in White River Junction, Vt., said in an interview that the new study sheds more light on this issue.

“Even though the data only go through 2012, I think they give a nice snapshot of what’s happening across the globe with thyroid cancer incidence in countries of different levels of development,” she said.

The findings underscore that “it’s important that people are educated about the limits of medical testing and that sometimes when we see abnormalities we are truly catching a cancer early, but sometimes we’re seeing things that have been there a long time and may not change or become a problem in the future,” Dr. Davies remarked.
 

Important to know what size of cancers are being detected

One particular concern about overdiagnosis in middle-income countries is that the common approach of active monitoring may be more difficult in these settings, Dr. Davies added.

“In order to manage overdiagnosis, the health care systems in those countries have to think about whether they have the infrastructure for active monitoring and whether the patients will show up for the monitoring – so that’s a challenge.”

Also, she noted that the new study does not detail the size of cancers detected.

“We don’t know much about the size of the cancers being detected and whether these are truly the small asymptomatic cancers that we are worried about being overdiagnosed.”

“Probably, at least some of what we’re seeing is appropriate detection of cancers that, before there was economic development, were in fact being missed and people were dying of,” she said.

“So while overdiagnosis can be occurring, some of this represents better detection of disease overall, and that’s a good thing actually.”

The authors and Dr. Davies have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.