Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Using a new system for classifying established prognostic features of lymph nodes may lead to better staging of oral cavity squamous cell cancer (OSCC) than the TNM staging system, experts say.

The TNM staging system is used by most facilities for cancer reporting, as defined by the National Cancer Institute. This system combines the size and extent of the primary tumor (T), the number of neighboring lymph nodes with cancer and subcategories (N), and whether or not metastasis has occurred (M).

In a new study published in the journal Cancer, the researchers created a novel classification system to better account for extranodal extension (ENE). The study population included 1460 adults with OSCC (696 with no lymph node involvement and 764 with positive lymph nodes), who underwent surgical resections at four centers.

“Our findings build on the growing evidence base that historical factors do not improve staging performance and that their omission results in improved N‐classification [i.e., the nodal status or lymph node involvement in cancer staging] performance,” John R. de Almeida, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues, wrote in their new paper.

For patients with OSCC, this system, known as the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer TNM N‐classification (TNM‐8‐N), has several limitations, the researchers explained. These limitations include redundancy in the rare N3a category (i.e., having single or multiple lymph nodes greater than 6 cm or 3-7 lymph nodes without ENE) and the impact of ENE as a new prognostic feature, they said.

“Recent studies have shown that major ENE is associated with a significantly worse outcome than minor ENE, suggesting that these two subgroups should be considered as separate entities,” the authors wrote.
 

Study Methods and Results

The researchers created N-classifications based on adjusted hazard ratios and statistical analysis (recursive partitioning) with a focus on lymph node (LN) size and number and the extent of ENE. They compared their classifications of OSCC cases to those of the TNM-8-N’s classifications of the same cases.

Using the new classification system, lymph node number and size and the extent of ENE were associated with overall survival. The adjusted hazard ratios for LN counts of 1 vs. zero and greater than 1 vs. 0 were 1.92 and 3.21, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for LN size of greater than 3 cm vs. 3 cm or less, and for major vs. minor ENE were 1.88 and 1.40, respectively.

The use of an aHR improved cancer staging compared to the TNM-8-N by eliminating the N2c and 6-cm threshold, stratifying the extent of ENE, and stratifying N2b by 3-cm threshold, the researchers wrote.

The researchers compared their new system to the TNM-8 and also two other classification systems and their own recursive partitioning analysis (another statistical model).

The aHR-based system ranked first out of five in terms of correctly staging cancer, while the TNM-8 was fifth in the discovery cohort and fifth in the validation cohorts.

Outcome predictions (percentage variance explained) were 19.81 with the aHR vs. 18.95 in theTNM-8 in the discovery cohort, and similarly were 11.72 vs. 10.13, respectively, in the validation cohort.

“Overall, 25 patients staged as IVa in TNM‐8 were upstaged to IVb in the aHR proposal, and one patient staged as IVb was downstaged to IVa. Otherwise, overall stage between TNM‐8 and aHR remained the same,” the authors wrote.

“Our proposed N-classification based on aHR challenges previous tenets such as the importance of the 6-cm threshold and the importance of contralateral nodes,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The results from the new classification system were limited by the relatively small sample sizes and may not generalize to nonsquamous oral cancers, the researchers noted.

Further validation is needed before this system may be routinely applied in practice, but the results support evidence in favor of eliminating historical factors from staging, they said.
 

Experts Tout Advantages of Proposed Classification System

Cancer staging must be as accurate as possible and reviewed frequently, Shawn Li, MD, an otolaryngologist at University Hospitals, Cleveland, said in an interview. “This study aims to optimize nodal staging in oral cavity cancer. The current staging system doesn’t reflect updated data, and may not be specific enough to oral cavity cancers.”

This study notes the importance of stratifying extranodal extension (ENE) by micro (less than 2 mm) and macro (greater than 2 mm),” he said. It also points out that metastatic disease greater than 6 cm without ENE is infrequent enough not to require its own subcategory, he said.

Finally, in the new classification, proposed in this paper, “N2c was removed, because, statistically, it doesn’t seem to be a worse prognosis in cancers of the oral cavity,” he said.

“The data [described in this new paper] suggests that certain traditional criteria used in nodal staging for oral cavity cancer, such as [involving] very large lymph nodes greater than 6 cm in size and contralateral nodal involvement, may be less important than criteria that have not as of yet been incorporated into head and neck staging,” Wesley Talcott, MD, said in an interview. “The current study provides evidence that in oral cavity cancer, the prognostic accuracy of staging may improve by dropping these older criteria and incorporating degree of extranodal extension.”

This evidence is apparent in the ranking of the new aHR classification as first of the five strategies compared in the study, said Dr. Talcott, who was not involved in the study.

Highlighting the importance of microscopic vs. macroscopic extension may lead to doctors improving their identification of patients at highest risk for recurrence and refining treatment strategies, suggested Dr. Talcott, MD, a radiation oncologist at Northwell Health, New York, NY. However, a larger dataset is needed to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the authors’ proposed staging system, he said.

The TNM‐8‐N was updated in 2017, Dr. Li noted. “Since this system is widely referenced, it will likely need to be updated again before the changes in this study are widely adopted,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute. The researchers, Dr. Li, and Dr. Talcott had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Using a new system for classifying established prognostic features of lymph nodes may lead to better staging of oral cavity squamous cell cancer (OSCC) than the TNM staging system, experts say.

The TNM staging system is used by most facilities for cancer reporting, as defined by the National Cancer Institute. This system combines the size and extent of the primary tumor (T), the number of neighboring lymph nodes with cancer and subcategories (N), and whether or not metastasis has occurred (M).

In a new study published in the journal Cancer, the researchers created a novel classification system to better account for extranodal extension (ENE). The study population included 1460 adults with OSCC (696 with no lymph node involvement and 764 with positive lymph nodes), who underwent surgical resections at four centers.

“Our findings build on the growing evidence base that historical factors do not improve staging performance and that their omission results in improved N‐classification [i.e., the nodal status or lymph node involvement in cancer staging] performance,” John R. de Almeida, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues, wrote in their new paper.

For patients with OSCC, this system, known as the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer TNM N‐classification (TNM‐8‐N), has several limitations, the researchers explained. These limitations include redundancy in the rare N3a category (i.e., having single or multiple lymph nodes greater than 6 cm or 3-7 lymph nodes without ENE) and the impact of ENE as a new prognostic feature, they said.

“Recent studies have shown that major ENE is associated with a significantly worse outcome than minor ENE, suggesting that these two subgroups should be considered as separate entities,” the authors wrote.
 

Study Methods and Results

The researchers created N-classifications based on adjusted hazard ratios and statistical analysis (recursive partitioning) with a focus on lymph node (LN) size and number and the extent of ENE. They compared their classifications of OSCC cases to those of the TNM-8-N’s classifications of the same cases.

Using the new classification system, lymph node number and size and the extent of ENE were associated with overall survival. The adjusted hazard ratios for LN counts of 1 vs. zero and greater than 1 vs. 0 were 1.92 and 3.21, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for LN size of greater than 3 cm vs. 3 cm or less, and for major vs. minor ENE were 1.88 and 1.40, respectively.

The use of an aHR improved cancer staging compared to the TNM-8-N by eliminating the N2c and 6-cm threshold, stratifying the extent of ENE, and stratifying N2b by 3-cm threshold, the researchers wrote.

The researchers compared their new system to the TNM-8 and also two other classification systems and their own recursive partitioning analysis (another statistical model).

The aHR-based system ranked first out of five in terms of correctly staging cancer, while the TNM-8 was fifth in the discovery cohort and fifth in the validation cohorts.

Outcome predictions (percentage variance explained) were 19.81 with the aHR vs. 18.95 in theTNM-8 in the discovery cohort, and similarly were 11.72 vs. 10.13, respectively, in the validation cohort.

“Overall, 25 patients staged as IVa in TNM‐8 were upstaged to IVb in the aHR proposal, and one patient staged as IVb was downstaged to IVa. Otherwise, overall stage between TNM‐8 and aHR remained the same,” the authors wrote.

“Our proposed N-classification based on aHR challenges previous tenets such as the importance of the 6-cm threshold and the importance of contralateral nodes,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The results from the new classification system were limited by the relatively small sample sizes and may not generalize to nonsquamous oral cancers, the researchers noted.

Further validation is needed before this system may be routinely applied in practice, but the results support evidence in favor of eliminating historical factors from staging, they said.
 

Experts Tout Advantages of Proposed Classification System

Cancer staging must be as accurate as possible and reviewed frequently, Shawn Li, MD, an otolaryngologist at University Hospitals, Cleveland, said in an interview. “This study aims to optimize nodal staging in oral cavity cancer. The current staging system doesn’t reflect updated data, and may not be specific enough to oral cavity cancers.”

This study notes the importance of stratifying extranodal extension (ENE) by micro (less than 2 mm) and macro (greater than 2 mm),” he said. It also points out that metastatic disease greater than 6 cm without ENE is infrequent enough not to require its own subcategory, he said.

Finally, in the new classification, proposed in this paper, “N2c was removed, because, statistically, it doesn’t seem to be a worse prognosis in cancers of the oral cavity,” he said.

“The data [described in this new paper] suggests that certain traditional criteria used in nodal staging for oral cavity cancer, such as [involving] very large lymph nodes greater than 6 cm in size and contralateral nodal involvement, may be less important than criteria that have not as of yet been incorporated into head and neck staging,” Wesley Talcott, MD, said in an interview. “The current study provides evidence that in oral cavity cancer, the prognostic accuracy of staging may improve by dropping these older criteria and incorporating degree of extranodal extension.”

This evidence is apparent in the ranking of the new aHR classification as first of the five strategies compared in the study, said Dr. Talcott, who was not involved in the study.

Highlighting the importance of microscopic vs. macroscopic extension may lead to doctors improving their identification of patients at highest risk for recurrence and refining treatment strategies, suggested Dr. Talcott, MD, a radiation oncologist at Northwell Health, New York, NY. However, a larger dataset is needed to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the authors’ proposed staging system, he said.

The TNM‐8‐N was updated in 2017, Dr. Li noted. “Since this system is widely referenced, it will likely need to be updated again before the changes in this study are widely adopted,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute. The researchers, Dr. Li, and Dr. Talcott had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Using a new system for classifying established prognostic features of lymph nodes may lead to better staging of oral cavity squamous cell cancer (OSCC) than the TNM staging system, experts say.

The TNM staging system is used by most facilities for cancer reporting, as defined by the National Cancer Institute. This system combines the size and extent of the primary tumor (T), the number of neighboring lymph nodes with cancer and subcategories (N), and whether or not metastasis has occurred (M).

In a new study published in the journal Cancer, the researchers created a novel classification system to better account for extranodal extension (ENE). The study population included 1460 adults with OSCC (696 with no lymph node involvement and 764 with positive lymph nodes), who underwent surgical resections at four centers.

“Our findings build on the growing evidence base that historical factors do not improve staging performance and that their omission results in improved N‐classification [i.e., the nodal status or lymph node involvement in cancer staging] performance,” John R. de Almeida, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues, wrote in their new paper.

For patients with OSCC, this system, known as the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer TNM N‐classification (TNM‐8‐N), has several limitations, the researchers explained. These limitations include redundancy in the rare N3a category (i.e., having single or multiple lymph nodes greater than 6 cm or 3-7 lymph nodes without ENE) and the impact of ENE as a new prognostic feature, they said.

“Recent studies have shown that major ENE is associated with a significantly worse outcome than minor ENE, suggesting that these two subgroups should be considered as separate entities,” the authors wrote.
 

Study Methods and Results

The researchers created N-classifications based on adjusted hazard ratios and statistical analysis (recursive partitioning) with a focus on lymph node (LN) size and number and the extent of ENE. They compared their classifications of OSCC cases to those of the TNM-8-N’s classifications of the same cases.

Using the new classification system, lymph node number and size and the extent of ENE were associated with overall survival. The adjusted hazard ratios for LN counts of 1 vs. zero and greater than 1 vs. 0 were 1.92 and 3.21, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for LN size of greater than 3 cm vs. 3 cm or less, and for major vs. minor ENE were 1.88 and 1.40, respectively.

The use of an aHR improved cancer staging compared to the TNM-8-N by eliminating the N2c and 6-cm threshold, stratifying the extent of ENE, and stratifying N2b by 3-cm threshold, the researchers wrote.

The researchers compared their new system to the TNM-8 and also two other classification systems and their own recursive partitioning analysis (another statistical model).

The aHR-based system ranked first out of five in terms of correctly staging cancer, while the TNM-8 was fifth in the discovery cohort and fifth in the validation cohorts.

Outcome predictions (percentage variance explained) were 19.81 with the aHR vs. 18.95 in theTNM-8 in the discovery cohort, and similarly were 11.72 vs. 10.13, respectively, in the validation cohort.

“Overall, 25 patients staged as IVa in TNM‐8 were upstaged to IVb in the aHR proposal, and one patient staged as IVb was downstaged to IVa. Otherwise, overall stage between TNM‐8 and aHR remained the same,” the authors wrote.

“Our proposed N-classification based on aHR challenges previous tenets such as the importance of the 6-cm threshold and the importance of contralateral nodes,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The results from the new classification system were limited by the relatively small sample sizes and may not generalize to nonsquamous oral cancers, the researchers noted.

Further validation is needed before this system may be routinely applied in practice, but the results support evidence in favor of eliminating historical factors from staging, they said.
 

Experts Tout Advantages of Proposed Classification System

Cancer staging must be as accurate as possible and reviewed frequently, Shawn Li, MD, an otolaryngologist at University Hospitals, Cleveland, said in an interview. “This study aims to optimize nodal staging in oral cavity cancer. The current staging system doesn’t reflect updated data, and may not be specific enough to oral cavity cancers.”

This study notes the importance of stratifying extranodal extension (ENE) by micro (less than 2 mm) and macro (greater than 2 mm),” he said. It also points out that metastatic disease greater than 6 cm without ENE is infrequent enough not to require its own subcategory, he said.

Finally, in the new classification, proposed in this paper, “N2c was removed, because, statistically, it doesn’t seem to be a worse prognosis in cancers of the oral cavity,” he said.

“The data [described in this new paper] suggests that certain traditional criteria used in nodal staging for oral cavity cancer, such as [involving] very large lymph nodes greater than 6 cm in size and contralateral nodal involvement, may be less important than criteria that have not as of yet been incorporated into head and neck staging,” Wesley Talcott, MD, said in an interview. “The current study provides evidence that in oral cavity cancer, the prognostic accuracy of staging may improve by dropping these older criteria and incorporating degree of extranodal extension.”

This evidence is apparent in the ranking of the new aHR classification as first of the five strategies compared in the study, said Dr. Talcott, who was not involved in the study.

Highlighting the importance of microscopic vs. macroscopic extension may lead to doctors improving their identification of patients at highest risk for recurrence and refining treatment strategies, suggested Dr. Talcott, MD, a radiation oncologist at Northwell Health, New York, NY. However, a larger dataset is needed to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the authors’ proposed staging system, he said.

The TNM‐8‐N was updated in 2017, Dr. Li noted. “Since this system is widely referenced, it will likely need to be updated again before the changes in this study are widely adopted,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute. The researchers, Dr. Li, and Dr. Talcott had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly three quarters of dedicated thyroid ultrasounds don’t identify biopsy-recommended nodules, and over a third don’t identify any nodules, new research finds.

“The number of thyroid ultrasounds performed in the United States has increased fivefold since 2002. This substantial increase produces a significant strain on healthcare resources and leads to over-detection and overtreatment of benign thyroid nodules and small, indolent cancers with questionable clinical relevance,” wrote Elena Kennedy, MD, then a medical student in the department of surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and colleagues.

The data, published online in Thyroid, come from a retrospective chart analysis of more than 1700 people who underwent dedicated (ie, specifically to look for a nodule) thyroid ultrasounds at a tertiary academic center. The rates of detecting both nodules and biopsy-recommended nodules were highest when the indication was a nodule seen incidentally on other imaging (aka “incidentaloma”) and lowest when the ultrasound was ordered because the patient had either metabolic or compressive symptoms.

And for the most commonly listed indication, a suspected palpable nodule, nearly half of the ultrasounds found no nodule, and only one in five detected a nodule that warranted a biopsy.

The principal investigator of the study David O. Francis, MD, an otolaryngologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview, “Thyroid cancer has grown in incidence three to four times over the last 30 years without a good explanation for why…It seems to be that we’re detecting smaller and smaller nodules…Why are people being referred for all these ultrasounds? We looked for the upstream factors.”

One clear clinical implication of the new data, Dr. Francis noted, is that “if someone has compressive symptoms including dysphagia, swallowing problems, voice change, or globus sensation, ultrasound should not be the first way to work them up…It would be smarter to have someone evaluate their voice or their swallowing to see if there’s another reason besides the thyroid. The thyroid would have to get pretty big to cause dysphagia or swallowing problems.”
 

No Current Guidelines Advise When not to Order a Thyroid Ultrasound

Problematically, while there are professional society guidelines for what to do when a thyroid “incidentaloma” is found and other specific situations, there are no overall guidelines addressing when it’s appropriate to order a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Kennedy, now an otolaryngology resident at the Indiana University of Indianapolis, and colleagues, point out.

According to Dr. Francis, “Ultrasounds are low cost and low risk. Those two factors result in people ordering more tests…The problem with that is we find things, and then we have to figure out what to do with them. That leads to incidentalomas, the surveillance, worry and anxiety, and costs…It’s tricky. We don’t want to discourage people from ever ordering ultrasounds, but there need to be some guidelines around when it’s appropriate to order.”

Asked to comment, Trevor E. Angell, MD, associate medical director of Thyroid Center at Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that the study is “clinically very important.”

Dr. Angell pointed out that the current American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines on thyroid nodule management, of which he is an author, recommend ultrasound for a known or suspected nodule. But he added, “there certainly should be a message that obtaining ultrasound for these other reasons are less likely to identify a nodule or anything causative. Whether it’s gastroesophageal reflux or allergic rhinitis or vocal cord dysfunction, an ultrasound isn’t a good test for those either.”

Dr. Angell said that the next ATA thyroid nodule guidelines, expected out in 2024, will address this topic more fully, but he couldn’t provide more specific information because the document is still in development. He did say, however, “Addressing when not to do an ultrasound will be an important consideration in the next guidelines.”
 

Low Detection Rates for Most Indications

The retrospective observational cohort study included 1739 adults (76% women; mean age, 53 years) who underwent dedicated thyroid ultrasounds between 2017 and 2019. In most cases, the recommendation for biopsy was determined using the American College of Radiology TI-RADS system, based on nodule size and TI-RADS category.

The most common indication for thyroid ultrasound, suspected palpable nodule, accounted for 40% of those performed. Follow-up for an “incidentaloma” was the indication in 28% of patients, and referral for compressive and metabolic symptoms accounted for 13% and 6% of ultrasounds, respectively.

Among all ultrasounds performed, 62% identified a thyroid nodule. Patients referred for incidental findings had the highest percentage of ultrasounds with thyroid nodules present at 94%. By contrast, in those referred for suspected palpable nodule on exam and for compressive symptoms, nodules were identified on 55% and 39% of ultrasounds, respectively. Patients with metabolic symptoms had a nodule identified on ultrasound 43% of the time. Among those referred for high risk factors, 57% had a nodule present.

Overall, only 27% of ultrasounds identified a thyroid nodule that was recommended for a biopsy. Again, those referred because of an incidental imaging finding had the highest percentage (55%), followed by those referred for a suspected palpable nodule (21%), high risk factors (20%), combined indications (16%), metabolic symptoms (10%), and compressive symptoms (6%).

Mean nodule size was largest among the patients referred for incidentalomas (2.4 cm), whereas all the other groups had mean nodule sizes between 1.2 cm and 1.8 cm, a significant difference (P < .05). The median size of nodules among those referred to ultrasound for a suspected palpable nodule was 1.4 cm.

“That’s pretty small. It would have had to be in the front of the thyroid where they could actually touch it. I would argue that the number of clinicians who actually palpated something was smaller. We’ve done several projects looking at how small a nodule a clinician can actually feel in the thyroid gland from the neck. It turns out we’re pretty bad at physical examination of the thyroid. This paper kind of reinforces that,” Dr. Francis said in an interview.

Patients with incidental nodules were over 10 times more likely to have a nodule found on an ultrasound than those referred for a suspected palpable nodule on exam (odds ratio [OR], 10.6). Conversely, those referred for compressive symptoms were half as likely to have an identifiable nodule compared with those referred for physical exam findings (OR, 0.5).

The odds of finding a nodule increased with age, especially for those aged ≥ 65 years compared with those younger than 45 years (OR, 3.6). Women were twice as likely to have a nodule found on thyroid ultrasound (OR, 2.0). Results were similar for the biopsy-recommended nodules, except that there was no difference between sexes (female vs male OR, 1.2).

Dr. Angell called the study “a very robust comprehensive evaluation,” but also noted that the single center source is a limitation. “It would be nice to have those big databases of national healthcare settings, but getting that granular level of information about why something was done is nearly impossible in that context.”

Dr. Kennedy, Dr. Francis, and Dr. Angell have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly three quarters of dedicated thyroid ultrasounds don’t identify biopsy-recommended nodules, and over a third don’t identify any nodules, new research finds.

“The number of thyroid ultrasounds performed in the United States has increased fivefold since 2002. This substantial increase produces a significant strain on healthcare resources and leads to over-detection and overtreatment of benign thyroid nodules and small, indolent cancers with questionable clinical relevance,” wrote Elena Kennedy, MD, then a medical student in the department of surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and colleagues.

The data, published online in Thyroid, come from a retrospective chart analysis of more than 1700 people who underwent dedicated (ie, specifically to look for a nodule) thyroid ultrasounds at a tertiary academic center. The rates of detecting both nodules and biopsy-recommended nodules were highest when the indication was a nodule seen incidentally on other imaging (aka “incidentaloma”) and lowest when the ultrasound was ordered because the patient had either metabolic or compressive symptoms.

And for the most commonly listed indication, a suspected palpable nodule, nearly half of the ultrasounds found no nodule, and only one in five detected a nodule that warranted a biopsy.

The principal investigator of the study David O. Francis, MD, an otolaryngologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview, “Thyroid cancer has grown in incidence three to four times over the last 30 years without a good explanation for why…It seems to be that we’re detecting smaller and smaller nodules…Why are people being referred for all these ultrasounds? We looked for the upstream factors.”

One clear clinical implication of the new data, Dr. Francis noted, is that “if someone has compressive symptoms including dysphagia, swallowing problems, voice change, or globus sensation, ultrasound should not be the first way to work them up…It would be smarter to have someone evaluate their voice or their swallowing to see if there’s another reason besides the thyroid. The thyroid would have to get pretty big to cause dysphagia or swallowing problems.”
 

No Current Guidelines Advise When not to Order a Thyroid Ultrasound

Problematically, while there are professional society guidelines for what to do when a thyroid “incidentaloma” is found and other specific situations, there are no overall guidelines addressing when it’s appropriate to order a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Kennedy, now an otolaryngology resident at the Indiana University of Indianapolis, and colleagues, point out.

According to Dr. Francis, “Ultrasounds are low cost and low risk. Those two factors result in people ordering more tests…The problem with that is we find things, and then we have to figure out what to do with them. That leads to incidentalomas, the surveillance, worry and anxiety, and costs…It’s tricky. We don’t want to discourage people from ever ordering ultrasounds, but there need to be some guidelines around when it’s appropriate to order.”

Asked to comment, Trevor E. Angell, MD, associate medical director of Thyroid Center at Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that the study is “clinically very important.”

Dr. Angell pointed out that the current American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines on thyroid nodule management, of which he is an author, recommend ultrasound for a known or suspected nodule. But he added, “there certainly should be a message that obtaining ultrasound for these other reasons are less likely to identify a nodule or anything causative. Whether it’s gastroesophageal reflux or allergic rhinitis or vocal cord dysfunction, an ultrasound isn’t a good test for those either.”

Dr. Angell said that the next ATA thyroid nodule guidelines, expected out in 2024, will address this topic more fully, but he couldn’t provide more specific information because the document is still in development. He did say, however, “Addressing when not to do an ultrasound will be an important consideration in the next guidelines.”
 

Low Detection Rates for Most Indications

The retrospective observational cohort study included 1739 adults (76% women; mean age, 53 years) who underwent dedicated thyroid ultrasounds between 2017 and 2019. In most cases, the recommendation for biopsy was determined using the American College of Radiology TI-RADS system, based on nodule size and TI-RADS category.

The most common indication for thyroid ultrasound, suspected palpable nodule, accounted for 40% of those performed. Follow-up for an “incidentaloma” was the indication in 28% of patients, and referral for compressive and metabolic symptoms accounted for 13% and 6% of ultrasounds, respectively.

Among all ultrasounds performed, 62% identified a thyroid nodule. Patients referred for incidental findings had the highest percentage of ultrasounds with thyroid nodules present at 94%. By contrast, in those referred for suspected palpable nodule on exam and for compressive symptoms, nodules were identified on 55% and 39% of ultrasounds, respectively. Patients with metabolic symptoms had a nodule identified on ultrasound 43% of the time. Among those referred for high risk factors, 57% had a nodule present.

Overall, only 27% of ultrasounds identified a thyroid nodule that was recommended for a biopsy. Again, those referred because of an incidental imaging finding had the highest percentage (55%), followed by those referred for a suspected palpable nodule (21%), high risk factors (20%), combined indications (16%), metabolic symptoms (10%), and compressive symptoms (6%).

Mean nodule size was largest among the patients referred for incidentalomas (2.4 cm), whereas all the other groups had mean nodule sizes between 1.2 cm and 1.8 cm, a significant difference (P < .05). The median size of nodules among those referred to ultrasound for a suspected palpable nodule was 1.4 cm.

“That’s pretty small. It would have had to be in the front of the thyroid where they could actually touch it. I would argue that the number of clinicians who actually palpated something was smaller. We’ve done several projects looking at how small a nodule a clinician can actually feel in the thyroid gland from the neck. It turns out we’re pretty bad at physical examination of the thyroid. This paper kind of reinforces that,” Dr. Francis said in an interview.

Patients with incidental nodules were over 10 times more likely to have a nodule found on an ultrasound than those referred for a suspected palpable nodule on exam (odds ratio [OR], 10.6). Conversely, those referred for compressive symptoms were half as likely to have an identifiable nodule compared with those referred for physical exam findings (OR, 0.5).

The odds of finding a nodule increased with age, especially for those aged ≥ 65 years compared with those younger than 45 years (OR, 3.6). Women were twice as likely to have a nodule found on thyroid ultrasound (OR, 2.0). Results were similar for the biopsy-recommended nodules, except that there was no difference between sexes (female vs male OR, 1.2).

Dr. Angell called the study “a very robust comprehensive evaluation,” but also noted that the single center source is a limitation. “It would be nice to have those big databases of national healthcare settings, but getting that granular level of information about why something was done is nearly impossible in that context.”

Dr. Kennedy, Dr. Francis, and Dr. Angell have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly three quarters of dedicated thyroid ultrasounds don’t identify biopsy-recommended nodules, and over a third don’t identify any nodules, new research finds.

“The number of thyroid ultrasounds performed in the United States has increased fivefold since 2002. This substantial increase produces a significant strain on healthcare resources and leads to over-detection and overtreatment of benign thyroid nodules and small, indolent cancers with questionable clinical relevance,” wrote Elena Kennedy, MD, then a medical student in the department of surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and colleagues.

The data, published online in Thyroid, come from a retrospective chart analysis of more than 1700 people who underwent dedicated (ie, specifically to look for a nodule) thyroid ultrasounds at a tertiary academic center. The rates of detecting both nodules and biopsy-recommended nodules were highest when the indication was a nodule seen incidentally on other imaging (aka “incidentaloma”) and lowest when the ultrasound was ordered because the patient had either metabolic or compressive symptoms.

And for the most commonly listed indication, a suspected palpable nodule, nearly half of the ultrasounds found no nodule, and only one in five detected a nodule that warranted a biopsy.

The principal investigator of the study David O. Francis, MD, an otolaryngologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview, “Thyroid cancer has grown in incidence three to four times over the last 30 years without a good explanation for why…It seems to be that we’re detecting smaller and smaller nodules…Why are people being referred for all these ultrasounds? We looked for the upstream factors.”

One clear clinical implication of the new data, Dr. Francis noted, is that “if someone has compressive symptoms including dysphagia, swallowing problems, voice change, or globus sensation, ultrasound should not be the first way to work them up…It would be smarter to have someone evaluate their voice or their swallowing to see if there’s another reason besides the thyroid. The thyroid would have to get pretty big to cause dysphagia or swallowing problems.”
 

No Current Guidelines Advise When not to Order a Thyroid Ultrasound

Problematically, while there are professional society guidelines for what to do when a thyroid “incidentaloma” is found and other specific situations, there are no overall guidelines addressing when it’s appropriate to order a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Kennedy, now an otolaryngology resident at the Indiana University of Indianapolis, and colleagues, point out.

According to Dr. Francis, “Ultrasounds are low cost and low risk. Those two factors result in people ordering more tests…The problem with that is we find things, and then we have to figure out what to do with them. That leads to incidentalomas, the surveillance, worry and anxiety, and costs…It’s tricky. We don’t want to discourage people from ever ordering ultrasounds, but there need to be some guidelines around when it’s appropriate to order.”

Asked to comment, Trevor E. Angell, MD, associate medical director of Thyroid Center at Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that the study is “clinically very important.”

Dr. Angell pointed out that the current American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines on thyroid nodule management, of which he is an author, recommend ultrasound for a known or suspected nodule. But he added, “there certainly should be a message that obtaining ultrasound for these other reasons are less likely to identify a nodule or anything causative. Whether it’s gastroesophageal reflux or allergic rhinitis or vocal cord dysfunction, an ultrasound isn’t a good test for those either.”

Dr. Angell said that the next ATA thyroid nodule guidelines, expected out in 2024, will address this topic more fully, but he couldn’t provide more specific information because the document is still in development. He did say, however, “Addressing when not to do an ultrasound will be an important consideration in the next guidelines.”
 

Low Detection Rates for Most Indications

The retrospective observational cohort study included 1739 adults (76% women; mean age, 53 years) who underwent dedicated thyroid ultrasounds between 2017 and 2019. In most cases, the recommendation for biopsy was determined using the American College of Radiology TI-RADS system, based on nodule size and TI-RADS category.

The most common indication for thyroid ultrasound, suspected palpable nodule, accounted for 40% of those performed. Follow-up for an “incidentaloma” was the indication in 28% of patients, and referral for compressive and metabolic symptoms accounted for 13% and 6% of ultrasounds, respectively.

Among all ultrasounds performed, 62% identified a thyroid nodule. Patients referred for incidental findings had the highest percentage of ultrasounds with thyroid nodules present at 94%. By contrast, in those referred for suspected palpable nodule on exam and for compressive symptoms, nodules were identified on 55% and 39% of ultrasounds, respectively. Patients with metabolic symptoms had a nodule identified on ultrasound 43% of the time. Among those referred for high risk factors, 57% had a nodule present.

Overall, only 27% of ultrasounds identified a thyroid nodule that was recommended for a biopsy. Again, those referred because of an incidental imaging finding had the highest percentage (55%), followed by those referred for a suspected palpable nodule (21%), high risk factors (20%), combined indications (16%), metabolic symptoms (10%), and compressive symptoms (6%).

Mean nodule size was largest among the patients referred for incidentalomas (2.4 cm), whereas all the other groups had mean nodule sizes between 1.2 cm and 1.8 cm, a significant difference (P < .05). The median size of nodules among those referred to ultrasound for a suspected palpable nodule was 1.4 cm.

“That’s pretty small. It would have had to be in the front of the thyroid where they could actually touch it. I would argue that the number of clinicians who actually palpated something was smaller. We’ve done several projects looking at how small a nodule a clinician can actually feel in the thyroid gland from the neck. It turns out we’re pretty bad at physical examination of the thyroid. This paper kind of reinforces that,” Dr. Francis said in an interview.

Patients with incidental nodules were over 10 times more likely to have a nodule found on an ultrasound than those referred for a suspected palpable nodule on exam (odds ratio [OR], 10.6). Conversely, those referred for compressive symptoms were half as likely to have an identifiable nodule compared with those referred for physical exam findings (OR, 0.5).

The odds of finding a nodule increased with age, especially for those aged ≥ 65 years compared with those younger than 45 years (OR, 3.6). Women were twice as likely to have a nodule found on thyroid ultrasound (OR, 2.0). Results were similar for the biopsy-recommended nodules, except that there was no difference between sexes (female vs male OR, 1.2).

Dr. Angell called the study “a very robust comprehensive evaluation,” but also noted that the single center source is a limitation. “It would be nice to have those big databases of national healthcare settings, but getting that granular level of information about why something was done is nearly impossible in that context.”

Dr. Kennedy, Dr. Francis, and Dr. Angell have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has released guidance on how to prioritize use of key oncology drugs amid ongoing shortages.

As of November 30, the US Food and Drug Administration lists 16 commonly used oncology drugs currently in shortage, including methotrexate, capecitabine, vinblastine, carboplatin, and cisplatin, along with another 13 discontinued agents.

The ASCO guidance, which is updated regularly on ASCO’s drug shortage website, covers dozens of clinical situations involving breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecologic, thoracic, and head & neck cancers, as well as Hodgkin lymphoma.

The recommendations, published earlier in JCO Oncology Practice, represent the work of a Drug Shortages Advisory Group with over 40 oncologists, ethicists, and patient advocates brought together by ASCO in collaboration with the Society for Gynecologic Oncology. 

In the guidance, the advisory group also provides some context about why these shortage issues have persisted, including a paucity of generic options, quality control issues, and reluctance among manufacturers to produce older drugs with slim profit margins.

And “while ASCO continues to work to address the root causes of the shortages, this guidance document aims to support clinicians, as they navigate the complexities of treatment planning amid the drug shortage, and patients with cancer who are already enduring physical and emotional hardships,” the advisory group writes.

The overall message in the guidance: conserve oncology drugs in limited supply to use when needed most.

The recommendations highlight alternative regimens, when available, and what to do in situations when there are no alternatives, advice that has become particularly relevant for the oncology workhorses cisplatin and carboplatin.

More generally, when ranges of acceptable doses and dose frequencies exist for drugs in short supply, clinicians should opt for the lowest dose at the longest interval. Dose rounding and multi-use vials should also be used to eliminate waste, and alternatives should be used whenever possible. If an alternative agent with similar efficacy and safety is available, the agent in limited supply should not be ordered.

In certain settings where no reasonable alternatives to platinum regimens exist, the advisory group recommends patients travel to where platinum agents are available. The group noted this strategy specifically for patients with non–small cell lung cancer or testicular germ cell cancers, but also acknowledged that this option “may cause additional financial toxicity, hardship, and distress.”

Other, more granular advice includes holding carboplatin in reserve for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer on neoadjuvant therapy who don’t respond well to upfront doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and pembrolizumab.

In addition to providing strategies to manage the ongoing cancer drug shortages, ASCO advises counseling for patients and clinicians struggling with the “psychological or moral distress” from the ongoing shortages.

“Unfortunately, drug shortages place the patient and the provider in a challenging situation, possibly resulting in inferior outcomes, delayed or denied care, and increased adverse events,” the advisory group writes. “ASCO will continue to respond to the oncology drug shortage crisis through policy and advocacy efforts, provide ethical guidance for allocation and prioritization decisions, and maintain shortage-specific clinical guidance as long as necessary.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has released guidance on how to prioritize use of key oncology drugs amid ongoing shortages.

As of November 30, the US Food and Drug Administration lists 16 commonly used oncology drugs currently in shortage, including methotrexate, capecitabine, vinblastine, carboplatin, and cisplatin, along with another 13 discontinued agents.

The ASCO guidance, which is updated regularly on ASCO’s drug shortage website, covers dozens of clinical situations involving breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecologic, thoracic, and head & neck cancers, as well as Hodgkin lymphoma.

The recommendations, published earlier in JCO Oncology Practice, represent the work of a Drug Shortages Advisory Group with over 40 oncologists, ethicists, and patient advocates brought together by ASCO in collaboration with the Society for Gynecologic Oncology. 

In the guidance, the advisory group also provides some context about why these shortage issues have persisted, including a paucity of generic options, quality control issues, and reluctance among manufacturers to produce older drugs with slim profit margins.

And “while ASCO continues to work to address the root causes of the shortages, this guidance document aims to support clinicians, as they navigate the complexities of treatment planning amid the drug shortage, and patients with cancer who are already enduring physical and emotional hardships,” the advisory group writes.

The overall message in the guidance: conserve oncology drugs in limited supply to use when needed most.

The recommendations highlight alternative regimens, when available, and what to do in situations when there are no alternatives, advice that has become particularly relevant for the oncology workhorses cisplatin and carboplatin.

More generally, when ranges of acceptable doses and dose frequencies exist for drugs in short supply, clinicians should opt for the lowest dose at the longest interval. Dose rounding and multi-use vials should also be used to eliminate waste, and alternatives should be used whenever possible. If an alternative agent with similar efficacy and safety is available, the agent in limited supply should not be ordered.

In certain settings where no reasonable alternatives to platinum regimens exist, the advisory group recommends patients travel to where platinum agents are available. The group noted this strategy specifically for patients with non–small cell lung cancer or testicular germ cell cancers, but also acknowledged that this option “may cause additional financial toxicity, hardship, and distress.”

Other, more granular advice includes holding carboplatin in reserve for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer on neoadjuvant therapy who don’t respond well to upfront doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and pembrolizumab.

In addition to providing strategies to manage the ongoing cancer drug shortages, ASCO advises counseling for patients and clinicians struggling with the “psychological or moral distress” from the ongoing shortages.

“Unfortunately, drug shortages place the patient and the provider in a challenging situation, possibly resulting in inferior outcomes, delayed or denied care, and increased adverse events,” the advisory group writes. “ASCO will continue to respond to the oncology drug shortage crisis through policy and advocacy efforts, provide ethical guidance for allocation and prioritization decisions, and maintain shortage-specific clinical guidance as long as necessary.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has released guidance on how to prioritize use of key oncology drugs amid ongoing shortages.

As of November 30, the US Food and Drug Administration lists 16 commonly used oncology drugs currently in shortage, including methotrexate, capecitabine, vinblastine, carboplatin, and cisplatin, along with another 13 discontinued agents.

The ASCO guidance, which is updated regularly on ASCO’s drug shortage website, covers dozens of clinical situations involving breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecologic, thoracic, and head & neck cancers, as well as Hodgkin lymphoma.

The recommendations, published earlier in JCO Oncology Practice, represent the work of a Drug Shortages Advisory Group with over 40 oncologists, ethicists, and patient advocates brought together by ASCO in collaboration with the Society for Gynecologic Oncology. 

In the guidance, the advisory group also provides some context about why these shortage issues have persisted, including a paucity of generic options, quality control issues, and reluctance among manufacturers to produce older drugs with slim profit margins.

And “while ASCO continues to work to address the root causes of the shortages, this guidance document aims to support clinicians, as they navigate the complexities of treatment planning amid the drug shortage, and patients with cancer who are already enduring physical and emotional hardships,” the advisory group writes.

The overall message in the guidance: conserve oncology drugs in limited supply to use when needed most.

The recommendations highlight alternative regimens, when available, and what to do in situations when there are no alternatives, advice that has become particularly relevant for the oncology workhorses cisplatin and carboplatin.

More generally, when ranges of acceptable doses and dose frequencies exist for drugs in short supply, clinicians should opt for the lowest dose at the longest interval. Dose rounding and multi-use vials should also be used to eliminate waste, and alternatives should be used whenever possible. If an alternative agent with similar efficacy and safety is available, the agent in limited supply should not be ordered.

In certain settings where no reasonable alternatives to platinum regimens exist, the advisory group recommends patients travel to where platinum agents are available. The group noted this strategy specifically for patients with non–small cell lung cancer or testicular germ cell cancers, but also acknowledged that this option “may cause additional financial toxicity, hardship, and distress.”

Other, more granular advice includes holding carboplatin in reserve for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer on neoadjuvant therapy who don’t respond well to upfront doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and pembrolizumab.

In addition to providing strategies to manage the ongoing cancer drug shortages, ASCO advises counseling for patients and clinicians struggling with the “psychological or moral distress” from the ongoing shortages.

“Unfortunately, drug shortages place the patient and the provider in a challenging situation, possibly resulting in inferior outcomes, delayed or denied care, and increased adverse events,” the advisory group writes. “ASCO will continue to respond to the oncology drug shortage crisis through policy and advocacy efforts, provide ethical guidance for allocation and prioritization decisions, and maintain shortage-specific clinical guidance as long as necessary.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New evidence points to an association between exposure to “forever chemicals” and an increased risk for thyroid cancer.

The study suggests that higher exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), specifically perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (n-PFOS), may increase a person’s risk for thyroid cancer by 56%.

Several news outlets played up the findings, published online in eBioMedicine. “Dangerous ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Your Everyday Items Are Causing Cancer,” Newsweek reported.

But Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong (Australia), voiced his skepticism.

“While it’s possible that PFAS might be causing thyroid cancer, the evidence thus far is unconvincing and probably not worth worrying about,” said Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz, who was not involved in the research.
 

PFAS and thyroid cancer

PFAS are a class of widely used synthetic chemicals found in many consumer and industrial products, including nonstick cookware, stain-repellent carpets, waterproof rain gear, microwave popcorn bags, and firefighting foam.

These substances have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not degrade and are ubiquitous in the environment.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including PFAS, has been identified as a potential risk factor for thyroid cancer, with some research linking PFAS exposure to thyroid dysfunction and carcinogenesis.

To investigate further, the researchers performed a nested case-control study of 86 patients with thyroid cancer using plasma samples collected at or before diagnosis and 86 controls without cancer who were matched on age, sex, race/ethnicity, body weight, smoking status, and year of sample collection. 

Eighteen individual PFAS were measured in plasma samples; 10 were undetectable and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining eight PFAS, only one showed a statistically significant correlation with thyroid cancer. 

Specifically, the researchers found that exposure to n-PFOS was associated with a 56% increased risk for thyroid cancer among people who had a high level of the chemical in their blood (adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; P = .004). The results were similar when patients with papillary thyroid cancer only were included (aOR, 1.56; P = .009).

A separate longitudinal analysis of 31 patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer 1 year or more after plasma sample collection and 31 controls confirmed the positive association between n-PFOS and thyroid cancer (aOR, 2.67; P < .001). The longitudinal analysis also suggested correlations for a few other PFAS.

“This study supports the hypothesis that PFAS exposure may be associated with increased risk of thyroid cancer,” the authors concluded.

But in a Substack post, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said that it’s important to put the findings into “proper context before getting terrified about this all-new cancer risk.”

First, this study was “genuinely tiny,” with data on just 88 people with thyroid cancer and 88 controls, a limitation the researchers also acknowledged.

“That’s really not enough to do any sort of robust epidemiological analysis – you can generate interesting correlations, but what those correlations mean is anyone’s guess,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said.

Even more importantly, one could easily argue that the results of this study show that most PFAS aren’t associated with thyroid cancer, given that there was no strong association for seven of the eight PFAS measured, he explained.

“There are no serious methodological concerns here, but equally there’s just not much you can reasonably gather from finding a single correlation among a vast ocean of possibilities,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz wrote. “Maybe there’s a correlation there, but you’d need to investigate this in much bigger samples, with more controls, and better data, to understand what that correlation means.”

Bottom line, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz explained, is that “the link between PFAS and thyroid cancer is, at best, incredibly weak.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. One coauthor is cofounder of Linus Biotechnology and is owner of a license agreement with NIES (Japan); received honoraria and travel compensation for lectures for the Bio-Echo and Brin foundations; and has 22 patents at various stages. Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New evidence points to an association between exposure to “forever chemicals” and an increased risk for thyroid cancer.

The study suggests that higher exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), specifically perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (n-PFOS), may increase a person’s risk for thyroid cancer by 56%.

Several news outlets played up the findings, published online in eBioMedicine. “Dangerous ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Your Everyday Items Are Causing Cancer,” Newsweek reported.

But Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong (Australia), voiced his skepticism.

“While it’s possible that PFAS might be causing thyroid cancer, the evidence thus far is unconvincing and probably not worth worrying about,” said Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz, who was not involved in the research.
 

PFAS and thyroid cancer

PFAS are a class of widely used synthetic chemicals found in many consumer and industrial products, including nonstick cookware, stain-repellent carpets, waterproof rain gear, microwave popcorn bags, and firefighting foam.

These substances have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not degrade and are ubiquitous in the environment.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including PFAS, has been identified as a potential risk factor for thyroid cancer, with some research linking PFAS exposure to thyroid dysfunction and carcinogenesis.

To investigate further, the researchers performed a nested case-control study of 86 patients with thyroid cancer using plasma samples collected at or before diagnosis and 86 controls without cancer who were matched on age, sex, race/ethnicity, body weight, smoking status, and year of sample collection. 

Eighteen individual PFAS were measured in plasma samples; 10 were undetectable and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining eight PFAS, only one showed a statistically significant correlation with thyroid cancer. 

Specifically, the researchers found that exposure to n-PFOS was associated with a 56% increased risk for thyroid cancer among people who had a high level of the chemical in their blood (adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; P = .004). The results were similar when patients with papillary thyroid cancer only were included (aOR, 1.56; P = .009).

A separate longitudinal analysis of 31 patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer 1 year or more after plasma sample collection and 31 controls confirmed the positive association between n-PFOS and thyroid cancer (aOR, 2.67; P < .001). The longitudinal analysis also suggested correlations for a few other PFAS.

“This study supports the hypothesis that PFAS exposure may be associated with increased risk of thyroid cancer,” the authors concluded.

But in a Substack post, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said that it’s important to put the findings into “proper context before getting terrified about this all-new cancer risk.”

First, this study was “genuinely tiny,” with data on just 88 people with thyroid cancer and 88 controls, a limitation the researchers also acknowledged.

“That’s really not enough to do any sort of robust epidemiological analysis – you can generate interesting correlations, but what those correlations mean is anyone’s guess,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said.

Even more importantly, one could easily argue that the results of this study show that most PFAS aren’t associated with thyroid cancer, given that there was no strong association for seven of the eight PFAS measured, he explained.

“There are no serious methodological concerns here, but equally there’s just not much you can reasonably gather from finding a single correlation among a vast ocean of possibilities,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz wrote. “Maybe there’s a correlation there, but you’d need to investigate this in much bigger samples, with more controls, and better data, to understand what that correlation means.”

Bottom line, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz explained, is that “the link between PFAS and thyroid cancer is, at best, incredibly weak.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. One coauthor is cofounder of Linus Biotechnology and is owner of a license agreement with NIES (Japan); received honoraria and travel compensation for lectures for the Bio-Echo and Brin foundations; and has 22 patents at various stages. Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New evidence points to an association between exposure to “forever chemicals” and an increased risk for thyroid cancer.

The study suggests that higher exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), specifically perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (n-PFOS), may increase a person’s risk for thyroid cancer by 56%.

Several news outlets played up the findings, published online in eBioMedicine. “Dangerous ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Your Everyday Items Are Causing Cancer,” Newsweek reported.

But Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong (Australia), voiced his skepticism.

“While it’s possible that PFAS might be causing thyroid cancer, the evidence thus far is unconvincing and probably not worth worrying about,” said Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz, who was not involved in the research.
 

PFAS and thyroid cancer

PFAS are a class of widely used synthetic chemicals found in many consumer and industrial products, including nonstick cookware, stain-repellent carpets, waterproof rain gear, microwave popcorn bags, and firefighting foam.

These substances have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not degrade and are ubiquitous in the environment.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including PFAS, has been identified as a potential risk factor for thyroid cancer, with some research linking PFAS exposure to thyroid dysfunction and carcinogenesis.

To investigate further, the researchers performed a nested case-control study of 86 patients with thyroid cancer using plasma samples collected at or before diagnosis and 86 controls without cancer who were matched on age, sex, race/ethnicity, body weight, smoking status, and year of sample collection. 

Eighteen individual PFAS were measured in plasma samples; 10 were undetectable and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining eight PFAS, only one showed a statistically significant correlation with thyroid cancer. 

Specifically, the researchers found that exposure to n-PFOS was associated with a 56% increased risk for thyroid cancer among people who had a high level of the chemical in their blood (adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; P = .004). The results were similar when patients with papillary thyroid cancer only were included (aOR, 1.56; P = .009).

A separate longitudinal analysis of 31 patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer 1 year or more after plasma sample collection and 31 controls confirmed the positive association between n-PFOS and thyroid cancer (aOR, 2.67; P < .001). The longitudinal analysis also suggested correlations for a few other PFAS.

“This study supports the hypothesis that PFAS exposure may be associated with increased risk of thyroid cancer,” the authors concluded.

But in a Substack post, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said that it’s important to put the findings into “proper context before getting terrified about this all-new cancer risk.”

First, this study was “genuinely tiny,” with data on just 88 people with thyroid cancer and 88 controls, a limitation the researchers also acknowledged.

“That’s really not enough to do any sort of robust epidemiological analysis – you can generate interesting correlations, but what those correlations mean is anyone’s guess,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said.

Even more importantly, one could easily argue that the results of this study show that most PFAS aren’t associated with thyroid cancer, given that there was no strong association for seven of the eight PFAS measured, he explained.

“There are no serious methodological concerns here, but equally there’s just not much you can reasonably gather from finding a single correlation among a vast ocean of possibilities,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz wrote. “Maybe there’s a correlation there, but you’d need to investigate this in much bigger samples, with more controls, and better data, to understand what that correlation means.”

Bottom line, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz explained, is that “the link between PFAS and thyroid cancer is, at best, incredibly weak.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. One coauthor is cofounder of Linus Biotechnology and is owner of a license agreement with NIES (Japan); received honoraria and travel compensation for lectures for the Bio-Echo and Brin foundations; and has 22 patents at various stages. Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – More than one-third of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who have a complete clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy may be able to safely avoid major surgery, findings from the Dutch SANO trial suggest.

After 2 years, researchers found no significant differences in overall and disease-free survival between patients on active surveillance and those who received surgery either immediately following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or who switched from active surveillance to surgery.

Overall, patients who underwent active surveillance had “noninferior overall survival at 2 years,” said Berend J. Van der Wilk, PhD candidate, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Over the 2-year follow-up, at least 35% of patients on active surveillance were spared surgery. Patients on active surveillance who experienced locoregional regrowth could still undergo surgery, Mr. Van der Wilk said.

Magnus Nilsson, MD, PhD, the invited discussant, who was not involved in the research, said performing such a conceptually important and complex trial was a “huge achievement.” However, Dr. Nilsson highlighted some “major concerns” with the trial design, which could affect the generalizability of the findings.

Avoiding surgery?

Esophagectomy remains the “keystone of curative treatment for esophageal cancer,” Mr. Van der Wilks explained. However, this operation is a “major surgical procedure” that comes with a mortality rate of up to 5%. As many as 59% of patients experience complications.

The CROSS trial, which included more than 360 patients with esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, found that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved survival among patients with potentially curable disease; 29% of patients achieved a pathologic complete response.

Mr. Van der Wilk said those strong outcomes create some uncertainty as to whether all patients need standard surgery after chemoradiotherapy.

In other words, Mr. Van der Wilk asked, “Should we be willing to follow an active surveillance, organ-sparing strategy for patients with a clinical response?”

An active surveillance strategy, he said, would require frequent evaluations of the patient’s clinical response. Surgery would be performed only in cases of proven residual tumor in which there were no distant metastases. The potential pitfall of an active surveillance approach is that patients may develop unresectable tumor regrowths, “possibly resulting in inferior overall survival.”

To compare active surveillance with standard surgery, the team conducted a phase 3 noninferiority stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial involving patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer.

Patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel for 5 weeks. Concurrent radiotherapy was delivered at 41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week, as in the CROSS trial.

More than 300 patients who achieved a complete clinical response 12 weeks after completing chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned to undergo standard surgery or active surveillance. Surgery was performed for those with subsequent tumor regrowth.

Overall, 198 patients underwent active surveillance, and 111 patients underwent standard surgery. The two groups were well balanced in terms of median age, sex distribution, proportion of adenocarcinomas, and World Health Organization performance scores. At the last patient assessment, on July 6, 2023, the median follow-up was 38 months.

Overall, 101 of 111 patients in the standard surgery arm and 83 of 198 (42%) in the active surveillance group had surgery. The time to surgery in the active surveillance arm was 5.9 months, compared with 0.7 months with standard surgery. For both groups, the R0 resection rate was 98%.

Mr. Van der Wilk reported no significant difference in overall survival between the active surveillance and standard surgery groups (hazard ratio for death, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.78; P = .55). Overall survival in the active surveillance group was noninferior to that in the standard surgery group at 2 years. Noninferiority was defined as an overall survival difference between the two arms of less than 15%.

Mr. Van der Wilk also reported no significant difference in disease-free survival between the active surveillance and the standard surgery groups – 35 months with active surveillance, and 49 months with surgery (HR, 1.35; P = .15). At 30 months following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 43% of patients on active surveillance and 34% with standard surgery developed distant metastases, but the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 1.45; P = .18).

Among the patients in the active surveillance arm who had a complete response, 35% (n = 69) had a persistent clinical response, while 17% (33 patients) developed distant metastases, and 48% (n = 96) experienced locoregional growth. The postoperative 90-day mortality was 4% in the active surveillance group and 5% in the surgery group.

Health-related quality of life was significantly better at 6 and 9 months in the active surveillance group, Mr. Van der Wilk noted.

Although Dr. Nilsson, the invited discussant, highlighted the importance of the trial, he also expressed concern over the trial design.

The intention-to-treat analysis was contaminated, Dr. Nilsson said, because the trial design allowed for one crossover, but patients in the trial crossed over at two time points – 35 patients who were initially assigned to standard surgery crossed over to the active surveillance arm, and later, seven patients from a preSANO trial were included in the active surveillance arm.

Dr. Nilsson also expressed concern about mixing squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma histologies in the study. If the authors had distinguished patients with squamous cell carcinoma and those with adenocarcinoma in each arm, there may have a difference in overall survival, given that squamous cell carcinoma is much easier to treat.

The study also included some patients who did not have a complete clinical response and whose surgery was delayed by more than 10 weeks – a practice that, Dr. Nilsson said, “does not really seem to be safe.” A recent study led by Dr. Nilsson found that delaying surgery for 10-12 weeks in comparison with 4-6 weeks did not improve histologic complete response or other pathologic endpoints and may have led to worse survival.

“I’m afraid it’s not really certain that it’s safe to prolong surgery more than 10 weeks or longer in the clinical noncomplete responders,” said Dr. Nilsson, from the department of clinical science, intervention, and technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

Overall, he said, the study “suggests that survival may be noninferior” among patients on active surveillance in comparison with those who undergo immediate surgery, but the findings need to be confirmed in a trial with a more stringent intention-to-treat analysis that is stratified by histologic subtypes.

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Mr. Van der Wilk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nilsson has relationships with Medtronic, Intuitive Surgical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, from which he received no personal financial benefit.

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

MADRID – More than one-third of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who have a complete clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy may be able to safely avoid major surgery, findings from the Dutch SANO trial suggest.

After 2 years, researchers found no significant differences in overall and disease-free survival between patients on active surveillance and those who received surgery either immediately following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or who switched from active surveillance to surgery.

Overall, patients who underwent active surveillance had “noninferior overall survival at 2 years,” said Berend J. Van der Wilk, PhD candidate, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Over the 2-year follow-up, at least 35% of patients on active surveillance were spared surgery. Patients on active surveillance who experienced locoregional regrowth could still undergo surgery, Mr. Van der Wilk said.

Magnus Nilsson, MD, PhD, the invited discussant, who was not involved in the research, said performing such a conceptually important and complex trial was a “huge achievement.” However, Dr. Nilsson highlighted some “major concerns” with the trial design, which could affect the generalizability of the findings.

Avoiding surgery?

Esophagectomy remains the “keystone of curative treatment for esophageal cancer,” Mr. Van der Wilks explained. However, this operation is a “major surgical procedure” that comes with a mortality rate of up to 5%. As many as 59% of patients experience complications.

The CROSS trial, which included more than 360 patients with esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, found that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved survival among patients with potentially curable disease; 29% of patients achieved a pathologic complete response.

Mr. Van der Wilk said those strong outcomes create some uncertainty as to whether all patients need standard surgery after chemoradiotherapy.

In other words, Mr. Van der Wilk asked, “Should we be willing to follow an active surveillance, organ-sparing strategy for patients with a clinical response?”

An active surveillance strategy, he said, would require frequent evaluations of the patient’s clinical response. Surgery would be performed only in cases of proven residual tumor in which there were no distant metastases. The potential pitfall of an active surveillance approach is that patients may develop unresectable tumor regrowths, “possibly resulting in inferior overall survival.”

To compare active surveillance with standard surgery, the team conducted a phase 3 noninferiority stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial involving patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer.

Patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel for 5 weeks. Concurrent radiotherapy was delivered at 41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week, as in the CROSS trial.

More than 300 patients who achieved a complete clinical response 12 weeks after completing chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned to undergo standard surgery or active surveillance. Surgery was performed for those with subsequent tumor regrowth.

Overall, 198 patients underwent active surveillance, and 111 patients underwent standard surgery. The two groups were well balanced in terms of median age, sex distribution, proportion of adenocarcinomas, and World Health Organization performance scores. At the last patient assessment, on July 6, 2023, the median follow-up was 38 months.

Overall, 101 of 111 patients in the standard surgery arm and 83 of 198 (42%) in the active surveillance group had surgery. The time to surgery in the active surveillance arm was 5.9 months, compared with 0.7 months with standard surgery. For both groups, the R0 resection rate was 98%.

Mr. Van der Wilk reported no significant difference in overall survival between the active surveillance and standard surgery groups (hazard ratio for death, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.78; P = .55). Overall survival in the active surveillance group was noninferior to that in the standard surgery group at 2 years. Noninferiority was defined as an overall survival difference between the two arms of less than 15%.

Mr. Van der Wilk also reported no significant difference in disease-free survival between the active surveillance and the standard surgery groups – 35 months with active surveillance, and 49 months with surgery (HR, 1.35; P = .15). At 30 months following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 43% of patients on active surveillance and 34% with standard surgery developed distant metastases, but the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 1.45; P = .18).

Among the patients in the active surveillance arm who had a complete response, 35% (n = 69) had a persistent clinical response, while 17% (33 patients) developed distant metastases, and 48% (n = 96) experienced locoregional growth. The postoperative 90-day mortality was 4% in the active surveillance group and 5% in the surgery group.

Health-related quality of life was significantly better at 6 and 9 months in the active surveillance group, Mr. Van der Wilk noted.

Although Dr. Nilsson, the invited discussant, highlighted the importance of the trial, he also expressed concern over the trial design.

The intention-to-treat analysis was contaminated, Dr. Nilsson said, because the trial design allowed for one crossover, but patients in the trial crossed over at two time points – 35 patients who were initially assigned to standard surgery crossed over to the active surveillance arm, and later, seven patients from a preSANO trial were included in the active surveillance arm.

Dr. Nilsson also expressed concern about mixing squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma histologies in the study. If the authors had distinguished patients with squamous cell carcinoma and those with adenocarcinoma in each arm, there may have a difference in overall survival, given that squamous cell carcinoma is much easier to treat.

The study also included some patients who did not have a complete clinical response and whose surgery was delayed by more than 10 weeks – a practice that, Dr. Nilsson said, “does not really seem to be safe.” A recent study led by Dr. Nilsson found that delaying surgery for 10-12 weeks in comparison with 4-6 weeks did not improve histologic complete response or other pathologic endpoints and may have led to worse survival.

“I’m afraid it’s not really certain that it’s safe to prolong surgery more than 10 weeks or longer in the clinical noncomplete responders,” said Dr. Nilsson, from the department of clinical science, intervention, and technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

Overall, he said, the study “suggests that survival may be noninferior” among patients on active surveillance in comparison with those who undergo immediate surgery, but the findings need to be confirmed in a trial with a more stringent intention-to-treat analysis that is stratified by histologic subtypes.

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Mr. Van der Wilk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nilsson has relationships with Medtronic, Intuitive Surgical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, from which he received no personal financial benefit.

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

MADRID – More than one-third of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who have a complete clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy may be able to safely avoid major surgery, findings from the Dutch SANO trial suggest.

After 2 years, researchers found no significant differences in overall and disease-free survival between patients on active surveillance and those who received surgery either immediately following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or who switched from active surveillance to surgery.

Overall, patients who underwent active surveillance had “noninferior overall survival at 2 years,” said Berend J. Van der Wilk, PhD candidate, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Over the 2-year follow-up, at least 35% of patients on active surveillance were spared surgery. Patients on active surveillance who experienced locoregional regrowth could still undergo surgery, Mr. Van der Wilk said.

Magnus Nilsson, MD, PhD, the invited discussant, who was not involved in the research, said performing such a conceptually important and complex trial was a “huge achievement.” However, Dr. Nilsson highlighted some “major concerns” with the trial design, which could affect the generalizability of the findings.

Avoiding surgery?

Esophagectomy remains the “keystone of curative treatment for esophageal cancer,” Mr. Van der Wilks explained. However, this operation is a “major surgical procedure” that comes with a mortality rate of up to 5%. As many as 59% of patients experience complications.

The CROSS trial, which included more than 360 patients with esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, found that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved survival among patients with potentially curable disease; 29% of patients achieved a pathologic complete response.

Mr. Van der Wilk said those strong outcomes create some uncertainty as to whether all patients need standard surgery after chemoradiotherapy.

In other words, Mr. Van der Wilk asked, “Should we be willing to follow an active surveillance, organ-sparing strategy for patients with a clinical response?”

An active surveillance strategy, he said, would require frequent evaluations of the patient’s clinical response. Surgery would be performed only in cases of proven residual tumor in which there were no distant metastases. The potential pitfall of an active surveillance approach is that patients may develop unresectable tumor regrowths, “possibly resulting in inferior overall survival.”

To compare active surveillance with standard surgery, the team conducted a phase 3 noninferiority stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial involving patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer.

Patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel for 5 weeks. Concurrent radiotherapy was delivered at 41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week, as in the CROSS trial.

More than 300 patients who achieved a complete clinical response 12 weeks after completing chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned to undergo standard surgery or active surveillance. Surgery was performed for those with subsequent tumor regrowth.

Overall, 198 patients underwent active surveillance, and 111 patients underwent standard surgery. The two groups were well balanced in terms of median age, sex distribution, proportion of adenocarcinomas, and World Health Organization performance scores. At the last patient assessment, on July 6, 2023, the median follow-up was 38 months.

Overall, 101 of 111 patients in the standard surgery arm and 83 of 198 (42%) in the active surveillance group had surgery. The time to surgery in the active surveillance arm was 5.9 months, compared with 0.7 months with standard surgery. For both groups, the R0 resection rate was 98%.

Mr. Van der Wilk reported no significant difference in overall survival between the active surveillance and standard surgery groups (hazard ratio for death, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.78; P = .55). Overall survival in the active surveillance group was noninferior to that in the standard surgery group at 2 years. Noninferiority was defined as an overall survival difference between the two arms of less than 15%.

Mr. Van der Wilk also reported no significant difference in disease-free survival between the active surveillance and the standard surgery groups – 35 months with active surveillance, and 49 months with surgery (HR, 1.35; P = .15). At 30 months following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 43% of patients on active surveillance and 34% with standard surgery developed distant metastases, but the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 1.45; P = .18).

Among the patients in the active surveillance arm who had a complete response, 35% (n = 69) had a persistent clinical response, while 17% (33 patients) developed distant metastases, and 48% (n = 96) experienced locoregional growth. The postoperative 90-day mortality was 4% in the active surveillance group and 5% in the surgery group.

Health-related quality of life was significantly better at 6 and 9 months in the active surveillance group, Mr. Van der Wilk noted.

Although Dr. Nilsson, the invited discussant, highlighted the importance of the trial, he also expressed concern over the trial design.

The intention-to-treat analysis was contaminated, Dr. Nilsson said, because the trial design allowed for one crossover, but patients in the trial crossed over at two time points – 35 patients who were initially assigned to standard surgery crossed over to the active surveillance arm, and later, seven patients from a preSANO trial were included in the active surveillance arm.

Dr. Nilsson also expressed concern about mixing squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma histologies in the study. If the authors had distinguished patients with squamous cell carcinoma and those with adenocarcinoma in each arm, there may have a difference in overall survival, given that squamous cell carcinoma is much easier to treat.

The study also included some patients who did not have a complete clinical response and whose surgery was delayed by more than 10 weeks – a practice that, Dr. Nilsson said, “does not really seem to be safe.” A recent study led by Dr. Nilsson found that delaying surgery for 10-12 weeks in comparison with 4-6 weeks did not improve histologic complete response or other pathologic endpoints and may have led to worse survival.

“I’m afraid it’s not really certain that it’s safe to prolong surgery more than 10 weeks or longer in the clinical noncomplete responders,” said Dr. Nilsson, from the department of clinical science, intervention, and technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

Overall, he said, the study “suggests that survival may be noninferior” among patients on active surveillance in comparison with those who undergo immediate surgery, but the findings need to be confirmed in a trial with a more stringent intention-to-treat analysis that is stratified by histologic subtypes.

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Mr. Van der Wilk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nilsson has relationships with Medtronic, Intuitive Surgical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, from which he received no personal financial benefit.

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

SAN DIEGO – In low- and middle-income countries with high incidence and mortality from head and neck cancer, resources remain limited. Patients often can’t travel far for treatment or afford to stay near a treatment center for the length of time required for conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.

A hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen with or without weekly cisplatin may be a viable alternative for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in these settings.

The phase 3 randomized HYPNO trial, conducted in 10 low- and middle-income countries, revealed that the hypofractionated regimen shortened total treatment time by a median of 11.5 days and was noninferior to conventional fractionation for tumor control and safety.

The primary trial results were presented by Søren Bentzen, PhD, DMSc, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“It was Usain Bolt who said, ‘I train for 4 years to run 9 seconds,’ and that was the feeling that I had when we did the noninferiority test,” said Dr. Bentzen, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “We had not looked at the data while the data were being accumulated, and guess what? It actually turned out that we had noninferiority with respect to both locoregional control and the late effects.”

In the HYPNO trial, Dr. Bentzen and colleagues wanted to determine whether a streamlined approach to the treatment of patients in low- and middle-income countries could improve access to care and still achieve strong outcomes.

The investigators used mathematical modeling to devise a strategy to reduce the number of fractions and put this hypothesis to the test in a pragmatic trial.

Patients from Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines were enrolled. After stratification by performance status, tumor subsite, institution, and previous treatment with chemotherapy, the 792 patients in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 66 Gy in 33 fractions 6 days each week over 5.5 weeks, or 55 Gy in 20 fractions 5 days per week over 4 weeks. In both groups, weekly cisplatin was optional.

Compliance with the regimens was high in both arms, with 95% of patients assigned to conventional fractionation and 99% assigned to hypofractionation receiving the total planned doses.

At 3 years’ follow-up, the rates of locoregional control were 50.7% in the hypofractionation arm and 51.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .40). No significant differences between the groups have emerged over 5 years, Dr. Bentzen said.

Rates of late toxicities of grade 3 or greater at 3 years’ follow-up were similar between the groups, at 18.8% in the hypofractionation arm and 20.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .68).

Three-year overall survival rates also did not differ between the groups – 54.1% in the hypofractionation arm vs. 55.5% in the conventional arm (P = .62) – nor did rates of progression-free survival – 44.0% vs. 45.3%.

“Head and neck cancer caused by factors other than the human papillomavirus (HPV) remains a significant burden especially in lower- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Bentzen said in a press release. “This is a trial that directly informs how you can effectively deliver radiation therapy to patients in a resource-scarce environment.”

Beth Beadle, MD, PhD, the invited discussant at a media briefing where Dr. Bentzen summarized the findings, said, “I think this trial is going to change practice in low- and middle-income countries and will improve access to care.”

Although the approach used in the HYPNO trial will likely allow more patients to receive treatment and will save lives in countries with limited resources, the strategy likely won’t apply to U.S. practice, noted Dr. Beadle, a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford University, California.

“The one thing I do caution, and that Dr. Bentzen brought up, is that this is a very different population than the one that we see in the United States now,” Dr. Beadle said. “In fact, it’s very challenging to find a similar patient population to even serve as a comparison in the modern era and modern techniques.”

The HYPNO trial was sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. Bentzen and Dr. Beadle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – In low- and middle-income countries with high incidence and mortality from head and neck cancer, resources remain limited. Patients often can’t travel far for treatment or afford to stay near a treatment center for the length of time required for conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.

A hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen with or without weekly cisplatin may be a viable alternative for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in these settings.

The phase 3 randomized HYPNO trial, conducted in 10 low- and middle-income countries, revealed that the hypofractionated regimen shortened total treatment time by a median of 11.5 days and was noninferior to conventional fractionation for tumor control and safety.

The primary trial results were presented by Søren Bentzen, PhD, DMSc, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“It was Usain Bolt who said, ‘I train for 4 years to run 9 seconds,’ and that was the feeling that I had when we did the noninferiority test,” said Dr. Bentzen, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “We had not looked at the data while the data were being accumulated, and guess what? It actually turned out that we had noninferiority with respect to both locoregional control and the late effects.”

In the HYPNO trial, Dr. Bentzen and colleagues wanted to determine whether a streamlined approach to the treatment of patients in low- and middle-income countries could improve access to care and still achieve strong outcomes.

The investigators used mathematical modeling to devise a strategy to reduce the number of fractions and put this hypothesis to the test in a pragmatic trial.

Patients from Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines were enrolled. After stratification by performance status, tumor subsite, institution, and previous treatment with chemotherapy, the 792 patients in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 66 Gy in 33 fractions 6 days each week over 5.5 weeks, or 55 Gy in 20 fractions 5 days per week over 4 weeks. In both groups, weekly cisplatin was optional.

Compliance with the regimens was high in both arms, with 95% of patients assigned to conventional fractionation and 99% assigned to hypofractionation receiving the total planned doses.

At 3 years’ follow-up, the rates of locoregional control were 50.7% in the hypofractionation arm and 51.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .40). No significant differences between the groups have emerged over 5 years, Dr. Bentzen said.

Rates of late toxicities of grade 3 or greater at 3 years’ follow-up were similar between the groups, at 18.8% in the hypofractionation arm and 20.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .68).

Three-year overall survival rates also did not differ between the groups – 54.1% in the hypofractionation arm vs. 55.5% in the conventional arm (P = .62) – nor did rates of progression-free survival – 44.0% vs. 45.3%.

“Head and neck cancer caused by factors other than the human papillomavirus (HPV) remains a significant burden especially in lower- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Bentzen said in a press release. “This is a trial that directly informs how you can effectively deliver radiation therapy to patients in a resource-scarce environment.”

Beth Beadle, MD, PhD, the invited discussant at a media briefing where Dr. Bentzen summarized the findings, said, “I think this trial is going to change practice in low- and middle-income countries and will improve access to care.”

Although the approach used in the HYPNO trial will likely allow more patients to receive treatment and will save lives in countries with limited resources, the strategy likely won’t apply to U.S. practice, noted Dr. Beadle, a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford University, California.

“The one thing I do caution, and that Dr. Bentzen brought up, is that this is a very different population than the one that we see in the United States now,” Dr. Beadle said. “In fact, it’s very challenging to find a similar patient population to even serve as a comparison in the modern era and modern techniques.”

The HYPNO trial was sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. Bentzen and Dr. Beadle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – In low- and middle-income countries with high incidence and mortality from head and neck cancer, resources remain limited. Patients often can’t travel far for treatment or afford to stay near a treatment center for the length of time required for conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.

A hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen with or without weekly cisplatin may be a viable alternative for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in these settings.

The phase 3 randomized HYPNO trial, conducted in 10 low- and middle-income countries, revealed that the hypofractionated regimen shortened total treatment time by a median of 11.5 days and was noninferior to conventional fractionation for tumor control and safety.

The primary trial results were presented by Søren Bentzen, PhD, DMSc, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“It was Usain Bolt who said, ‘I train for 4 years to run 9 seconds,’ and that was the feeling that I had when we did the noninferiority test,” said Dr. Bentzen, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “We had not looked at the data while the data were being accumulated, and guess what? It actually turned out that we had noninferiority with respect to both locoregional control and the late effects.”

In the HYPNO trial, Dr. Bentzen and colleagues wanted to determine whether a streamlined approach to the treatment of patients in low- and middle-income countries could improve access to care and still achieve strong outcomes.

The investigators used mathematical modeling to devise a strategy to reduce the number of fractions and put this hypothesis to the test in a pragmatic trial.

Patients from Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines were enrolled. After stratification by performance status, tumor subsite, institution, and previous treatment with chemotherapy, the 792 patients in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 66 Gy in 33 fractions 6 days each week over 5.5 weeks, or 55 Gy in 20 fractions 5 days per week over 4 weeks. In both groups, weekly cisplatin was optional.

Compliance with the regimens was high in both arms, with 95% of patients assigned to conventional fractionation and 99% assigned to hypofractionation receiving the total planned doses.

At 3 years’ follow-up, the rates of locoregional control were 50.7% in the hypofractionation arm and 51.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .40). No significant differences between the groups have emerged over 5 years, Dr. Bentzen said.

Rates of late toxicities of grade 3 or greater at 3 years’ follow-up were similar between the groups, at 18.8% in the hypofractionation arm and 20.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .68).

Three-year overall survival rates also did not differ between the groups – 54.1% in the hypofractionation arm vs. 55.5% in the conventional arm (P = .62) – nor did rates of progression-free survival – 44.0% vs. 45.3%.

“Head and neck cancer caused by factors other than the human papillomavirus (HPV) remains a significant burden especially in lower- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Bentzen said in a press release. “This is a trial that directly informs how you can effectively deliver radiation therapy to patients in a resource-scarce environment.”

Beth Beadle, MD, PhD, the invited discussant at a media briefing where Dr. Bentzen summarized the findings, said, “I think this trial is going to change practice in low- and middle-income countries and will improve access to care.”

Although the approach used in the HYPNO trial will likely allow more patients to receive treatment and will save lives in countries with limited resources, the strategy likely won’t apply to U.S. practice, noted Dr. Beadle, a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford University, California.

“The one thing I do caution, and that Dr. Bentzen brought up, is that this is a very different population than the one that we see in the United States now,” Dr. Beadle said. “In fact, it’s very challenging to find a similar patient population to even serve as a comparison in the modern era and modern techniques.”

The HYPNO trial was sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. Bentzen and Dr. Beadle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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