User login
Don’t delay: Cancer patients need both doses of COVID vaccine
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Childhood Hodgkin survivors have neurocognitive impairment
More than 2 decades on, adult survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma report significantly more neurocognitive impairment than their siblings, but the differences may be related to risk factors in adulthood rather than to treatment in childhood, investigators say.
Among adults with a history of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and their siblings as controls, the survivors reported significantly worse functioning than their brothers or sisters in four domains of neurocognitive functioning.
In multivariate analysis, however, while sex, race, activity level and smoking status were all significant predictors for worse neurocognitive impairment, there were no significant associations between chemotherapy drugs or chest radiation and neurocognitive impairment, said Annalynn M. Williams, PhD, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.
“Hodgkin lymphoma is the most common cancer diagnosed in adolescents, and for many years we’ve had high cure rates, resulting in a growing population of survivors who are now, unfortunately, at an increased risk for cardiovascular, respiratory, endocrine and neurologic late morbidity. The neurocognitive morbidity in this population, however, is unknown,” she said in oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Survivors and sibs
To better characterize the potential late neurocognitive effects of intensive Hodgkin lymphoma therapy in childhood, Dr. Williams and colleagues polled survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and randomly selected sibling controls who were participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).
Participants were asked to complete questionnaires regarding four domains of neurocognitive impairment: task efficiency, emotional regulation, organization, and memory. The investigators defined impairment in each domain as a score lower than that of the 90th percentile of community controls from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.
A total of 1,564 survivors and 725 controls completed the questionnaires and were included in the study.
The median age at follow-up was slightly higher among survivors, at 37 versus 32 years. The median age at diagnosis was 14, and the median time since diagnosis was 23 years.
In all, 10.8% of survivors reported impaired task efficiency, compared with 7.7% of controls. Problems with emotional regulation were reported by 16.6% of survivors versus 11.5% of siblings, and difficulties with organization and memory were reported by 12.1% versus10.3%, and 8.1% versus 5.7%, respectively.
In a model adjusted for age, sex, and race, the relative risks for neurocognitive impairment among survivors versus siblings, were as follows: task efficiency (RR,1.37); emotional regulation (RR, 1.56); organization (RR, 1.32); memory (RR, 1.72) (all significant by confidence interval).
In a model adjusted for sex, race, smoking status, exercise, age, time since diagnosis, and treatment exposures, risk factors for neurocognitive impairment among survivors included female versus male sex (significant for emotional regulation and memory deficits); non-White versus White (significant for task efficiency); former smoker versus never (significant for all domains except organization); current smoker versus never (significant for task efficiency and emotional regulation); and meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exercise criteria versus not (negatively significant for task efficiency and organization); (P < .05 for all above comparisons).
However, in a model adjusted for relapse, second malignancy, treatment exposures, age, sex, race, time since diagnosis, smoking status and physical activity, only relapse or second malignancy – surrogates for additional treatment exposures – were significantly associated with neurocognitive impairment, and then only in the domain of task efficiency.
Chronic conditions significantly associated with risk for impairment included cardiovascular disease (significant across all domains), respiratory comorbidities (significant for task efficiency), endocrine disorders (significant for task efficiency), and neurologic disorders (significant in all domains except organization).
“While these analyses give us a sense of the presence of neurocognitive impairment in a large sample of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors from across the U.S., these analyses are limited by the self-reported nature of the data,” Dr. Williams acknowledged.
“Because survivors self-report impairments, these likely represent overt, symptomatic neurocognitive impairments. Many more survivors may experience more subtle neurocognitive impairments, and additional research with objective measures of both chronic health conditions and neurocognitive functioning are warranted,” she added.
Smoking gun?
In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, session comoderator Pallawi Torka, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, commented that the finding regarding a link between current and former smoking as risk factors for neurocognitive impairment was “intriguing.”
“Do you think that smoking is a cause or an effect of having that impairment in childhood survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma?” she asked.
“That’s a great question, and actually one we have spent a great deal of time discussing, and we’re still trying to tease that apart. We’re still not really sure where that association is coming from,” Dr. Williams replied.
She noted that, in a different sample of CCSS participants from whom biospecimens were collected, the investigators plan to see whether smoking drives inflammation and oxidative stress mechanisms that may be contributing to neurocognitive impairment, or whether smoking is a coping mechanism related to anxiety and depression, which have also been seen in survivors.
Kara Kelly, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Roswell Park, commented that some survivors report symptoms of cognitive dysfunction shortly after treatment, and asked whether there might be a relationship to Hodgkin-specific factors such as B symptoms, in which cytokine-mediated inflammation may play a role.
Dr. Williams said that, “unfortunately, in CCSS these survivors had to be at least 5 years from diagnosis, but in many cases were recruited years after their diagnosis and treatment, so we don’t have data on B symptoms.”
The CCSS is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams, Dr. Palawi, and Dr. Kelly all reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Williams AM et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 370.
More than 2 decades on, adult survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma report significantly more neurocognitive impairment than their siblings, but the differences may be related to risk factors in adulthood rather than to treatment in childhood, investigators say.
Among adults with a history of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and their siblings as controls, the survivors reported significantly worse functioning than their brothers or sisters in four domains of neurocognitive functioning.
In multivariate analysis, however, while sex, race, activity level and smoking status were all significant predictors for worse neurocognitive impairment, there were no significant associations between chemotherapy drugs or chest radiation and neurocognitive impairment, said Annalynn M. Williams, PhD, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.
“Hodgkin lymphoma is the most common cancer diagnosed in adolescents, and for many years we’ve had high cure rates, resulting in a growing population of survivors who are now, unfortunately, at an increased risk for cardiovascular, respiratory, endocrine and neurologic late morbidity. The neurocognitive morbidity in this population, however, is unknown,” she said in oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Survivors and sibs
To better characterize the potential late neurocognitive effects of intensive Hodgkin lymphoma therapy in childhood, Dr. Williams and colleagues polled survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and randomly selected sibling controls who were participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).
Participants were asked to complete questionnaires regarding four domains of neurocognitive impairment: task efficiency, emotional regulation, organization, and memory. The investigators defined impairment in each domain as a score lower than that of the 90th percentile of community controls from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.
A total of 1,564 survivors and 725 controls completed the questionnaires and were included in the study.
The median age at follow-up was slightly higher among survivors, at 37 versus 32 years. The median age at diagnosis was 14, and the median time since diagnosis was 23 years.
In all, 10.8% of survivors reported impaired task efficiency, compared with 7.7% of controls. Problems with emotional regulation were reported by 16.6% of survivors versus 11.5% of siblings, and difficulties with organization and memory were reported by 12.1% versus10.3%, and 8.1% versus 5.7%, respectively.
In a model adjusted for age, sex, and race, the relative risks for neurocognitive impairment among survivors versus siblings, were as follows: task efficiency (RR,1.37); emotional regulation (RR, 1.56); organization (RR, 1.32); memory (RR, 1.72) (all significant by confidence interval).
In a model adjusted for sex, race, smoking status, exercise, age, time since diagnosis, and treatment exposures, risk factors for neurocognitive impairment among survivors included female versus male sex (significant for emotional regulation and memory deficits); non-White versus White (significant for task efficiency); former smoker versus never (significant for all domains except organization); current smoker versus never (significant for task efficiency and emotional regulation); and meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exercise criteria versus not (negatively significant for task efficiency and organization); (P < .05 for all above comparisons).
However, in a model adjusted for relapse, second malignancy, treatment exposures, age, sex, race, time since diagnosis, smoking status and physical activity, only relapse or second malignancy – surrogates for additional treatment exposures – were significantly associated with neurocognitive impairment, and then only in the domain of task efficiency.
Chronic conditions significantly associated with risk for impairment included cardiovascular disease (significant across all domains), respiratory comorbidities (significant for task efficiency), endocrine disorders (significant for task efficiency), and neurologic disorders (significant in all domains except organization).
“While these analyses give us a sense of the presence of neurocognitive impairment in a large sample of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors from across the U.S., these analyses are limited by the self-reported nature of the data,” Dr. Williams acknowledged.
“Because survivors self-report impairments, these likely represent overt, symptomatic neurocognitive impairments. Many more survivors may experience more subtle neurocognitive impairments, and additional research with objective measures of both chronic health conditions and neurocognitive functioning are warranted,” she added.
Smoking gun?
In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, session comoderator Pallawi Torka, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, commented that the finding regarding a link between current and former smoking as risk factors for neurocognitive impairment was “intriguing.”
“Do you think that smoking is a cause or an effect of having that impairment in childhood survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma?” she asked.
“That’s a great question, and actually one we have spent a great deal of time discussing, and we’re still trying to tease that apart. We’re still not really sure where that association is coming from,” Dr. Williams replied.
She noted that, in a different sample of CCSS participants from whom biospecimens were collected, the investigators plan to see whether smoking drives inflammation and oxidative stress mechanisms that may be contributing to neurocognitive impairment, or whether smoking is a coping mechanism related to anxiety and depression, which have also been seen in survivors.
Kara Kelly, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Roswell Park, commented that some survivors report symptoms of cognitive dysfunction shortly after treatment, and asked whether there might be a relationship to Hodgkin-specific factors such as B symptoms, in which cytokine-mediated inflammation may play a role.
Dr. Williams said that, “unfortunately, in CCSS these survivors had to be at least 5 years from diagnosis, but in many cases were recruited years after their diagnosis and treatment, so we don’t have data on B symptoms.”
The CCSS is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams, Dr. Palawi, and Dr. Kelly all reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Williams AM et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 370.
More than 2 decades on, adult survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma report significantly more neurocognitive impairment than their siblings, but the differences may be related to risk factors in adulthood rather than to treatment in childhood, investigators say.
Among adults with a history of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and their siblings as controls, the survivors reported significantly worse functioning than their brothers or sisters in four domains of neurocognitive functioning.
In multivariate analysis, however, while sex, race, activity level and smoking status were all significant predictors for worse neurocognitive impairment, there were no significant associations between chemotherapy drugs or chest radiation and neurocognitive impairment, said Annalynn M. Williams, PhD, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.
“Hodgkin lymphoma is the most common cancer diagnosed in adolescents, and for many years we’ve had high cure rates, resulting in a growing population of survivors who are now, unfortunately, at an increased risk for cardiovascular, respiratory, endocrine and neurologic late morbidity. The neurocognitive morbidity in this population, however, is unknown,” she said in oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Survivors and sibs
To better characterize the potential late neurocognitive effects of intensive Hodgkin lymphoma therapy in childhood, Dr. Williams and colleagues polled survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and randomly selected sibling controls who were participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).
Participants were asked to complete questionnaires regarding four domains of neurocognitive impairment: task efficiency, emotional regulation, organization, and memory. The investigators defined impairment in each domain as a score lower than that of the 90th percentile of community controls from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.
A total of 1,564 survivors and 725 controls completed the questionnaires and were included in the study.
The median age at follow-up was slightly higher among survivors, at 37 versus 32 years. The median age at diagnosis was 14, and the median time since diagnosis was 23 years.
In all, 10.8% of survivors reported impaired task efficiency, compared with 7.7% of controls. Problems with emotional regulation were reported by 16.6% of survivors versus 11.5% of siblings, and difficulties with organization and memory were reported by 12.1% versus10.3%, and 8.1% versus 5.7%, respectively.
In a model adjusted for age, sex, and race, the relative risks for neurocognitive impairment among survivors versus siblings, were as follows: task efficiency (RR,1.37); emotional regulation (RR, 1.56); organization (RR, 1.32); memory (RR, 1.72) (all significant by confidence interval).
In a model adjusted for sex, race, smoking status, exercise, age, time since diagnosis, and treatment exposures, risk factors for neurocognitive impairment among survivors included female versus male sex (significant for emotional regulation and memory deficits); non-White versus White (significant for task efficiency); former smoker versus never (significant for all domains except organization); current smoker versus never (significant for task efficiency and emotional regulation); and meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exercise criteria versus not (negatively significant for task efficiency and organization); (P < .05 for all above comparisons).
However, in a model adjusted for relapse, second malignancy, treatment exposures, age, sex, race, time since diagnosis, smoking status and physical activity, only relapse or second malignancy – surrogates for additional treatment exposures – were significantly associated with neurocognitive impairment, and then only in the domain of task efficiency.
Chronic conditions significantly associated with risk for impairment included cardiovascular disease (significant across all domains), respiratory comorbidities (significant for task efficiency), endocrine disorders (significant for task efficiency), and neurologic disorders (significant in all domains except organization).
“While these analyses give us a sense of the presence of neurocognitive impairment in a large sample of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors from across the U.S., these analyses are limited by the self-reported nature of the data,” Dr. Williams acknowledged.
“Because survivors self-report impairments, these likely represent overt, symptomatic neurocognitive impairments. Many more survivors may experience more subtle neurocognitive impairments, and additional research with objective measures of both chronic health conditions and neurocognitive functioning are warranted,” she added.
Smoking gun?
In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, session comoderator Pallawi Torka, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, commented that the finding regarding a link between current and former smoking as risk factors for neurocognitive impairment was “intriguing.”
“Do you think that smoking is a cause or an effect of having that impairment in childhood survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma?” she asked.
“That’s a great question, and actually one we have spent a great deal of time discussing, and we’re still trying to tease that apart. We’re still not really sure where that association is coming from,” Dr. Williams replied.
She noted that, in a different sample of CCSS participants from whom biospecimens were collected, the investigators plan to see whether smoking drives inflammation and oxidative stress mechanisms that may be contributing to neurocognitive impairment, or whether smoking is a coping mechanism related to anxiety and depression, which have also been seen in survivors.
Kara Kelly, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Roswell Park, commented that some survivors report symptoms of cognitive dysfunction shortly after treatment, and asked whether there might be a relationship to Hodgkin-specific factors such as B symptoms, in which cytokine-mediated inflammation may play a role.
Dr. Williams said that, “unfortunately, in CCSS these survivors had to be at least 5 years from diagnosis, but in many cases were recruited years after their diagnosis and treatment, so we don’t have data on B symptoms.”
The CCSS is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams, Dr. Palawi, and Dr. Kelly all reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Williams AM et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 370.
FROM ASH 2020
Efforts to close the ‘AYA gap’ in lymphoma
In the 1970s, cancer survival was poor for young children and older adults in the United States, as shown by data published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Great progress has been made since the 1970s, but improvements in outcome have been less impressive for cancer patients aged 15-39 years, as shown by research published in Cancer. 
Patients aged 15-39 years have been designated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as “adolescents and young adults (AYAs),” and the lag in survival benefit has been termed “the AYA gap.”
The AYA gap persists in lymphoma patients, and an expert panel recently outlined differences between lymphoma in AYAs and lymphoma in other age groups.
The experts spoke at a special session of the AACR Virtual Meeting: Advances in Malignant Lymphoma moderated by Somali M. Smith, MD, of the University of Chicago.
Factors that contribute to the AYA gap
About 89,000 AYAs are diagnosed with cancer each year in the United States, according to data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Lymphomas and thyroid cancer are the most common cancers among younger AYAs, aged 15-24 years.
In a report commissioned by the NIH in 2006, many factors contributing to the AYA gap were identified. Chief among them were:
- Limitations in access to care.
- Delayed diagnosis.
- Inconsistency in treatment and follow-up.
- Long-term toxicity (fertility, second malignancies, and cardiovascular disease).
These factors compromise health-related survival, even when cancer-specific survival is improved.
Panelist Kara Kelly, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., noted that there are additional unique challenges for AYAs with cancer. These include:
- Pubertal changes.
- Developmental transition to independence.
- Societal impediments such as insurance coverage and disparities in access to specialized centers.
- Psychosocial factors such as health literacy and adherence to treatment and follow-up.
Focusing on lymphoma specifically, Dr. Kelly noted that lymphoma biology differs across the age spectrum and by race and ethnicity. Both tumor and host factors require further study, she said.
Clinical trial access for AYAs
Dr. Kelly emphasized that, unfortunately, clinical research participation is low among AYAs. A major impediment is that adult clinical trials historically required participants to be at least 18 years old.
In addition, there has not been a focused effort to educate AYAs about regulatory safeguards to ensure safety and the promise of enhanced benefit to them in NCI Cancer Trials Network (NCTN) trials. As a result, the refusal rate is high.
A multi-stakeholder workshop, convened in May 2016 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research, outlined opportunities for expanding trial eligibility to include children younger than 18 years in first-in-human and other adult cancer clinical trials, enhancing their access to new agents, without compromising safety.
Recently, collaborative efforts between the adult and children’s NCTN research groups have included AYAs in studies addressing cancers that span the age spectrum, including lymphoma.
However, as Dr. Kelly noted, there are differences in AYA lymphoid malignancy types with a transition from more pediatric to more adult types.
Hodgkin lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma
Panelist Lisa G. Roth, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, reviewed the genomic landscape of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL).
Dr. Roth explained that both HL and PMBCL are derived from thymic B cells, predominantly affect the mediastinum, and are CD30-positive lymphomas. Both are characterized by upregulation of JAK/STAT and NF-kappaB as well as overexpression of PD-L1.
Dr. Roth noted that HL is challenging to sequence by standard methods because Reed Sternberg (HRS) cells represent less than 1% of the cellular infiltrate. Recurrently mutated genes in HL cluster by histologic subtype.
Whole-exome sequencing of HRS cells show loss of beta-2 microglobulin and MHC-1 expression, HLA-B, NF-kappaB signaling, and JAK-STAT signaling, according to data published in Blood Advances in 2019.
Dr. Roth’s lab performed immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays in 145 cases of HL (unpublished data). Results showed that loss of beta-2 microglobulin is more common in younger HL patients. For other alterations, there were too few cases to know.
Dr. Roth’s lab is a member of a pediatric/AYA HL sequencing multi-institutional consortium that has been able to extract DNA and RNA from samples submitted for whole-exome sequencing. The consortium’s goal is to shed light on implications of other genomic alterations that may differ by age in HL patients.
Dr. Roth cited research showing that PMBCL shares molecular alterations similar to those of HL. Alterations in PMBCL suggest dysregulated cellular signaling and immune evasion mechanisms (e.g., deletions in MHC type 1 and 2, beta-2 microglobulin, JAK-STAT, and NF-kappaB mutations) that provide opportunities to study novel agents, according to data published in Blood in 2019.
By early 2021, the S1826 and ANHL1931 studies, which have no age restriction, will be available to AYA lymphoma patients with HL and PMBCL, respectively, Dr. Roth said.
Follicular lymphoma: Clinical features by age
Panelist Abner Louissaint Jr, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed age-related differences in follicular lymphoma (FL).
He noted that FL typically presents at an advanced stage, with low- or high-grade histology. It is increasingly common in adults in their 50s and 60s, representing 20% of all lymphomas. FL is rare in children and AYAs.
Dr. Louissaint explained that the typical flow cytometric findings in FL are BCL2 translocations, occurring in up to 85%-90% of low-grade and 50% of high-grade cases. The t(14;18)(q32;q21) translocation juxtaposes BCL2 on 18q21 to regulatory sequences and enhances the expression of elements of the Ig heavy chain.
Malignant cells in FL patients express CD20, CD10, CD21, and BCL2 (in contrast to normal germinal centers) and overexpress BCL6 (in contrast to normal follicles), Dr. Louissaint noted. He said the Ki-67 proliferative index of the malignant cells is typically low.
Pediatric-type FL is rare, but case series show clinical, pathologic, and molecular features that are distinctive from adult FL, Dr. Louissaint explained.
He then discussed the features of pediatric-type FL in multiple domains. In the clinical domain, there is a male predilection, and stage tends to be low. There is frequent involvement of nodes of the head and neck region and rare involvement of internal lymph node chains.
Pathologically, the malignant cells appear high grade, with architectural effacement, expansile follicular pattern, large lymphocyte size, and an elevated proliferation index. In contrast to adult FL, malignant cells in pediatric-type FL lack aberrant BCL2 expression.
Most importantly, for pediatric-type FL, the prognosis is excellent with durable remissions after surgical excision, Dr. Louissaint said.
Follicular lymphoma: Molecular features by age
Because of the excellent prognosis in pediatric-type FL, it is important to assess whether young adults with FL have adult-type or pediatric-type lesions, Dr. Louissaint said.
He cited many studies showing differences in adult and pediatric-type FL. In adult FL, the mutational landscape is characterized by frequent chromatin-modifying mutations in genes such as CREBBP, KM22D, and EP300.
In contrast, in pediatric-type FL, there are frequent activating MAPK pathway mutations, including mutations in the negative regulatory domain of MAP2K1. These mutations are not seen in adult FL.
Dr. Louissaint noted that there may be mutations in epigenetic modifiers (CREBBP, TNFRSF14) in both adult and pediatric-type FL. However, CREBBP is very unusual in pediatric-type FL and common in adult FL. This suggests the alterations in pediatric-type FL do not simply represent an early stage of the same disease as adult FL.
Despite a high proliferating fraction and absence of BCL2/BCL6/IRF4 rearrangements in pediatric-type FL, the presence of these features was associated with dramatic difference in progression-free survival, according to research published in Blood in 2012.
A distinct entity
In 2016, the World Health Organization recognized pediatric-type FL as a distinct entity, with the following diagnostic criteria (published in Blood):
- At least partial effacement of nodal architecture, expansile follicles, intermediate-size blastoid cells, and no component of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
- Immunohistochemistry showing BCL6 positivity, BCL2 negativity or weak positivity, and a high proliferative fraction.
- Genomic studies showing no BCL2 amplification.
- Clinical features of nodal disease in the head and neck region, early clinical stage, age younger than 40 years, typically in a male with no internal nodes involved.
When FL occurs in AYAs, the diagnostic findings of pediatric-type FL suggest the patient will do well with conservative management (e.g., excision alone), Dr. Louissaint noted.
Two sizes do not fit all
The strategies that have improved cancer outcomes since the 1970s for children and older adults have been much less successful for AYAs with cancer.
As an oncologic community, we should not allow the AYA gap to persist. As always, the solutions are likely to involve focused clinical research, education, and communication. Effort will need to be targeted specifically to the AYA population.
Since health-related mortality is high even when cancer-specific outcomes improve, adopting and maintaining a healthy lifestyle must be a key part of the discussion with these young patients.
The biologic differences associated with AYA lymphomas demand participation in clinical trials.
Oncologists should vigorously support removing impediments to the participation of AYAs in prospective clinical trials, stratified (but unrestricted) by age, with careful analysis of patient-reported outcomes, late adverse effects, and biospecimen collection.
As Dr. Kelly noted in the question-and-answer period, the Children’s Oncology Group has an existing biobank of paraffin-embedded tumor samples, DNA from lymphoma specimens, plasma, and sera with clinically annotated data that can be given to investigators upon request and justification.
Going beyond eligibility for clinical trials
Unfortunately, we will likely find that broadening eligibility criteria is the “low-hanging fruit.” There are protocol-, patient-, and physician-related obstacles, according to a review published in Cancer in 2019.
Patient-related obstacles include fear of toxicity, uncertainty about placebos, a steep learning curve for health literacy, insurance-related impediments, and other access-related issues.
Discussions will need to be tailored to the AYA population. Frank, early conversations about fertility, sexuality, financial hardship, career advancement, work-life balance, and cognitive risks may not only facilitate treatment planning but also encourage the trust that is essential for patients to enroll in trials.
The investment in time, multidisciplinary staff and physician involvement, and potential delays in treatment initiation may be painful and inconvenient, but the benefits for long-term health outcomes and personal-professional relationships will be gratifying beyond measure.
Dr. Smith disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, Celgene, TGTX, Karyopharm, Janssen, and Bantem. Dr. Roth disclosed relationships with Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, and Celgene. Dr. Kelly and Dr. Louissaint had no financial relationships to disclose.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
In the 1970s, cancer survival was poor for young children and older adults in the United States, as shown by data published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Great progress has been made since the 1970s, but improvements in outcome have been less impressive for cancer patients aged 15-39 years, as shown by research published in Cancer.
Patients aged 15-39 years have been designated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as “adolescents and young adults (AYAs),” and the lag in survival benefit has been termed “the AYA gap.”
The AYA gap persists in lymphoma patients, and an expert panel recently outlined differences between lymphoma in AYAs and lymphoma in other age groups.
The experts spoke at a special session of the AACR Virtual Meeting: Advances in Malignant Lymphoma moderated by Somali M. Smith, MD, of the University of Chicago.
Factors that contribute to the AYA gap
About 89,000 AYAs are diagnosed with cancer each year in the United States, according to data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Lymphomas and thyroid cancer are the most common cancers among younger AYAs, aged 15-24 years.
In a report commissioned by the NIH in 2006, many factors contributing to the AYA gap were identified. Chief among them were:
- Limitations in access to care.
- Delayed diagnosis.
- Inconsistency in treatment and follow-up.
- Long-term toxicity (fertility, second malignancies, and cardiovascular disease).
These factors compromise health-related survival, even when cancer-specific survival is improved.
Panelist Kara Kelly, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., noted that there are additional unique challenges for AYAs with cancer. These include:
- Pubertal changes.
- Developmental transition to independence.
- Societal impediments such as insurance coverage and disparities in access to specialized centers.
- Psychosocial factors such as health literacy and adherence to treatment and follow-up.
Focusing on lymphoma specifically, Dr. Kelly noted that lymphoma biology differs across the age spectrum and by race and ethnicity. Both tumor and host factors require further study, she said.
Clinical trial access for AYAs
Dr. Kelly emphasized that, unfortunately, clinical research participation is low among AYAs. A major impediment is that adult clinical trials historically required participants to be at least 18 years old.
In addition, there has not been a focused effort to educate AYAs about regulatory safeguards to ensure safety and the promise of enhanced benefit to them in NCI Cancer Trials Network (NCTN) trials. As a result, the refusal rate is high.
A multi-stakeholder workshop, convened in May 2016 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research, outlined opportunities for expanding trial eligibility to include children younger than 18 years in first-in-human and other adult cancer clinical trials, enhancing their access to new agents, without compromising safety.
Recently, collaborative efforts between the adult and children’s NCTN research groups have included AYAs in studies addressing cancers that span the age spectrum, including lymphoma.
However, as Dr. Kelly noted, there are differences in AYA lymphoid malignancy types with a transition from more pediatric to more adult types.
Hodgkin lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma
Panelist Lisa G. Roth, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, reviewed the genomic landscape of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL).
Dr. Roth explained that both HL and PMBCL are derived from thymic B cells, predominantly affect the mediastinum, and are CD30-positive lymphomas. Both are characterized by upregulation of JAK/STAT and NF-kappaB as well as overexpression of PD-L1.
Dr. Roth noted that HL is challenging to sequence by standard methods because Reed Sternberg (HRS) cells represent less than 1% of the cellular infiltrate. Recurrently mutated genes in HL cluster by histologic subtype.
Whole-exome sequencing of HRS cells show loss of beta-2 microglobulin and MHC-1 expression, HLA-B, NF-kappaB signaling, and JAK-STAT signaling, according to data published in Blood Advances in 2019.
Dr. Roth’s lab performed immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays in 145 cases of HL (unpublished data). Results showed that loss of beta-2 microglobulin is more common in younger HL patients. For other alterations, there were too few cases to know.
Dr. Roth’s lab is a member of a pediatric/AYA HL sequencing multi-institutional consortium that has been able to extract DNA and RNA from samples submitted for whole-exome sequencing. The consortium’s goal is to shed light on implications of other genomic alterations that may differ by age in HL patients.
Dr. Roth cited research showing that PMBCL shares molecular alterations similar to those of HL. Alterations in PMBCL suggest dysregulated cellular signaling and immune evasion mechanisms (e.g., deletions in MHC type 1 and 2, beta-2 microglobulin, JAK-STAT, and NF-kappaB mutations) that provide opportunities to study novel agents, according to data published in Blood in 2019.
By early 2021, the S1826 and ANHL1931 studies, which have no age restriction, will be available to AYA lymphoma patients with HL and PMBCL, respectively, Dr. Roth said.
Follicular lymphoma: Clinical features by age
Panelist Abner Louissaint Jr, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed age-related differences in follicular lymphoma (FL).
He noted that FL typically presents at an advanced stage, with low- or high-grade histology. It is increasingly common in adults in their 50s and 60s, representing 20% of all lymphomas. FL is rare in children and AYAs.
Dr. Louissaint explained that the typical flow cytometric findings in FL are BCL2 translocations, occurring in up to 85%-90% of low-grade and 50% of high-grade cases. The t(14;18)(q32;q21) translocation juxtaposes BCL2 on 18q21 to regulatory sequences and enhances the expression of elements of the Ig heavy chain.
Malignant cells in FL patients express CD20, CD10, CD21, and BCL2 (in contrast to normal germinal centers) and overexpress BCL6 (in contrast to normal follicles), Dr. Louissaint noted. He said the Ki-67 proliferative index of the malignant cells is typically low.
Pediatric-type FL is rare, but case series show clinical, pathologic, and molecular features that are distinctive from adult FL, Dr. Louissaint explained.
He then discussed the features of pediatric-type FL in multiple domains. In the clinical domain, there is a male predilection, and stage tends to be low. There is frequent involvement of nodes of the head and neck region and rare involvement of internal lymph node chains.
Pathologically, the malignant cells appear high grade, with architectural effacement, expansile follicular pattern, large lymphocyte size, and an elevated proliferation index. In contrast to adult FL, malignant cells in pediatric-type FL lack aberrant BCL2 expression.
Most importantly, for pediatric-type FL, the prognosis is excellent with durable remissions after surgical excision, Dr. Louissaint said.
Follicular lymphoma: Molecular features by age
Because of the excellent prognosis in pediatric-type FL, it is important to assess whether young adults with FL have adult-type or pediatric-type lesions, Dr. Louissaint said.
He cited many studies showing differences in adult and pediatric-type FL. In adult FL, the mutational landscape is characterized by frequent chromatin-modifying mutations in genes such as CREBBP, KM22D, and EP300.
In contrast, in pediatric-type FL, there are frequent activating MAPK pathway mutations, including mutations in the negative regulatory domain of MAP2K1. These mutations are not seen in adult FL.
Dr. Louissaint noted that there may be mutations in epigenetic modifiers (CREBBP, TNFRSF14) in both adult and pediatric-type FL. However, CREBBP is very unusual in pediatric-type FL and common in adult FL. This suggests the alterations in pediatric-type FL do not simply represent an early stage of the same disease as adult FL.
Despite a high proliferating fraction and absence of BCL2/BCL6/IRF4 rearrangements in pediatric-type FL, the presence of these features was associated with dramatic difference in progression-free survival, according to research published in Blood in 2012.
A distinct entity
In 2016, the World Health Organization recognized pediatric-type FL as a distinct entity, with the following diagnostic criteria (published in Blood):
- At least partial effacement of nodal architecture, expansile follicles, intermediate-size blastoid cells, and no component of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
- Immunohistochemistry showing BCL6 positivity, BCL2 negativity or weak positivity, and a high proliferative fraction.
- Genomic studies showing no BCL2 amplification.
- Clinical features of nodal disease in the head and neck region, early clinical stage, age younger than 40 years, typically in a male with no internal nodes involved.
When FL occurs in AYAs, the diagnostic findings of pediatric-type FL suggest the patient will do well with conservative management (e.g., excision alone), Dr. Louissaint noted.
Two sizes do not fit all
The strategies that have improved cancer outcomes since the 1970s for children and older adults have been much less successful for AYAs with cancer.
As an oncologic community, we should not allow the AYA gap to persist. As always, the solutions are likely to involve focused clinical research, education, and communication. Effort will need to be targeted specifically to the AYA population.
Since health-related mortality is high even when cancer-specific outcomes improve, adopting and maintaining a healthy lifestyle must be a key part of the discussion with these young patients.
The biologic differences associated with AYA lymphomas demand participation in clinical trials.
Oncologists should vigorously support removing impediments to the participation of AYAs in prospective clinical trials, stratified (but unrestricted) by age, with careful analysis of patient-reported outcomes, late adverse effects, and biospecimen collection.
As Dr. Kelly noted in the question-and-answer period, the Children’s Oncology Group has an existing biobank of paraffin-embedded tumor samples, DNA from lymphoma specimens, plasma, and sera with clinically annotated data that can be given to investigators upon request and justification.
Going beyond eligibility for clinical trials
Unfortunately, we will likely find that broadening eligibility criteria is the “low-hanging fruit.” There are protocol-, patient-, and physician-related obstacles, according to a review published in Cancer in 2019.
Patient-related obstacles include fear of toxicity, uncertainty about placebos, a steep learning curve for health literacy, insurance-related impediments, and other access-related issues.
Discussions will need to be tailored to the AYA population. Frank, early conversations about fertility, sexuality, financial hardship, career advancement, work-life balance, and cognitive risks may not only facilitate treatment planning but also encourage the trust that is essential for patients to enroll in trials.
The investment in time, multidisciplinary staff and physician involvement, and potential delays in treatment initiation may be painful and inconvenient, but the benefits for long-term health outcomes and personal-professional relationships will be gratifying beyond measure.
Dr. Smith disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, Celgene, TGTX, Karyopharm, Janssen, and Bantem. Dr. Roth disclosed relationships with Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, and Celgene. Dr. Kelly and Dr. Louissaint had no financial relationships to disclose.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
In the 1970s, cancer survival was poor for young children and older adults in the United States, as shown by data published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Great progress has been made since the 1970s, but improvements in outcome have been less impressive for cancer patients aged 15-39 years, as shown by research published in Cancer.
Patients aged 15-39 years have been designated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as “adolescents and young adults (AYAs),” and the lag in survival benefit has been termed “the AYA gap.”
The AYA gap persists in lymphoma patients, and an expert panel recently outlined differences between lymphoma in AYAs and lymphoma in other age groups.
The experts spoke at a special session of the AACR Virtual Meeting: Advances in Malignant Lymphoma moderated by Somali M. Smith, MD, of the University of Chicago.
Factors that contribute to the AYA gap
About 89,000 AYAs are diagnosed with cancer each year in the United States, according to data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Lymphomas and thyroid cancer are the most common cancers among younger AYAs, aged 15-24 years.
In a report commissioned by the NIH in 2006, many factors contributing to the AYA gap were identified. Chief among them were:
- Limitations in access to care.
- Delayed diagnosis.
- Inconsistency in treatment and follow-up.
- Long-term toxicity (fertility, second malignancies, and cardiovascular disease).
These factors compromise health-related survival, even when cancer-specific survival is improved.
Panelist Kara Kelly, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., noted that there are additional unique challenges for AYAs with cancer. These include:
- Pubertal changes.
- Developmental transition to independence.
- Societal impediments such as insurance coverage and disparities in access to specialized centers.
- Psychosocial factors such as health literacy and adherence to treatment and follow-up.
Focusing on lymphoma specifically, Dr. Kelly noted that lymphoma biology differs across the age spectrum and by race and ethnicity. Both tumor and host factors require further study, she said.
Clinical trial access for AYAs
Dr. Kelly emphasized that, unfortunately, clinical research participation is low among AYAs. A major impediment is that adult clinical trials historically required participants to be at least 18 years old.
In addition, there has not been a focused effort to educate AYAs about regulatory safeguards to ensure safety and the promise of enhanced benefit to them in NCI Cancer Trials Network (NCTN) trials. As a result, the refusal rate is high.
A multi-stakeholder workshop, convened in May 2016 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research, outlined opportunities for expanding trial eligibility to include children younger than 18 years in first-in-human and other adult cancer clinical trials, enhancing their access to new agents, without compromising safety.
Recently, collaborative efforts between the adult and children’s NCTN research groups have included AYAs in studies addressing cancers that span the age spectrum, including lymphoma.
However, as Dr. Kelly noted, there are differences in AYA lymphoid malignancy types with a transition from more pediatric to more adult types.
Hodgkin lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma
Panelist Lisa G. Roth, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, reviewed the genomic landscape of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL).
Dr. Roth explained that both HL and PMBCL are derived from thymic B cells, predominantly affect the mediastinum, and are CD30-positive lymphomas. Both are characterized by upregulation of JAK/STAT and NF-kappaB as well as overexpression of PD-L1.
Dr. Roth noted that HL is challenging to sequence by standard methods because Reed Sternberg (HRS) cells represent less than 1% of the cellular infiltrate. Recurrently mutated genes in HL cluster by histologic subtype.
Whole-exome sequencing of HRS cells show loss of beta-2 microglobulin and MHC-1 expression, HLA-B, NF-kappaB signaling, and JAK-STAT signaling, according to data published in Blood Advances in 2019.
Dr. Roth’s lab performed immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays in 145 cases of HL (unpublished data). Results showed that loss of beta-2 microglobulin is more common in younger HL patients. For other alterations, there were too few cases to know.
Dr. Roth’s lab is a member of a pediatric/AYA HL sequencing multi-institutional consortium that has been able to extract DNA and RNA from samples submitted for whole-exome sequencing. The consortium’s goal is to shed light on implications of other genomic alterations that may differ by age in HL patients.
Dr. Roth cited research showing that PMBCL shares molecular alterations similar to those of HL. Alterations in PMBCL suggest dysregulated cellular signaling and immune evasion mechanisms (e.g., deletions in MHC type 1 and 2, beta-2 microglobulin, JAK-STAT, and NF-kappaB mutations) that provide opportunities to study novel agents, according to data published in Blood in 2019.
By early 2021, the S1826 and ANHL1931 studies, which have no age restriction, will be available to AYA lymphoma patients with HL and PMBCL, respectively, Dr. Roth said.
Follicular lymphoma: Clinical features by age
Panelist Abner Louissaint Jr, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed age-related differences in follicular lymphoma (FL).
He noted that FL typically presents at an advanced stage, with low- or high-grade histology. It is increasingly common in adults in their 50s and 60s, representing 20% of all lymphomas. FL is rare in children and AYAs.
Dr. Louissaint explained that the typical flow cytometric findings in FL are BCL2 translocations, occurring in up to 85%-90% of low-grade and 50% of high-grade cases. The t(14;18)(q32;q21) translocation juxtaposes BCL2 on 18q21 to regulatory sequences and enhances the expression of elements of the Ig heavy chain.
Malignant cells in FL patients express CD20, CD10, CD21, and BCL2 (in contrast to normal germinal centers) and overexpress BCL6 (in contrast to normal follicles), Dr. Louissaint noted. He said the Ki-67 proliferative index of the malignant cells is typically low.
Pediatric-type FL is rare, but case series show clinical, pathologic, and molecular features that are distinctive from adult FL, Dr. Louissaint explained.
He then discussed the features of pediatric-type FL in multiple domains. In the clinical domain, there is a male predilection, and stage tends to be low. There is frequent involvement of nodes of the head and neck region and rare involvement of internal lymph node chains.
Pathologically, the malignant cells appear high grade, with architectural effacement, expansile follicular pattern, large lymphocyte size, and an elevated proliferation index. In contrast to adult FL, malignant cells in pediatric-type FL lack aberrant BCL2 expression.
Most importantly, for pediatric-type FL, the prognosis is excellent with durable remissions after surgical excision, Dr. Louissaint said.
Follicular lymphoma: Molecular features by age
Because of the excellent prognosis in pediatric-type FL, it is important to assess whether young adults with FL have adult-type or pediatric-type lesions, Dr. Louissaint said.
He cited many studies showing differences in adult and pediatric-type FL. In adult FL, the mutational landscape is characterized by frequent chromatin-modifying mutations in genes such as CREBBP, KM22D, and EP300.
In contrast, in pediatric-type FL, there are frequent activating MAPK pathway mutations, including mutations in the negative regulatory domain of MAP2K1. These mutations are not seen in adult FL.
Dr. Louissaint noted that there may be mutations in epigenetic modifiers (CREBBP, TNFRSF14) in both adult and pediatric-type FL. However, CREBBP is very unusual in pediatric-type FL and common in adult FL. This suggests the alterations in pediatric-type FL do not simply represent an early stage of the same disease as adult FL.
Despite a high proliferating fraction and absence of BCL2/BCL6/IRF4 rearrangements in pediatric-type FL, the presence of these features was associated with dramatic difference in progression-free survival, according to research published in Blood in 2012.
A distinct entity
In 2016, the World Health Organization recognized pediatric-type FL as a distinct entity, with the following diagnostic criteria (published in Blood):
- At least partial effacement of nodal architecture, expansile follicles, intermediate-size blastoid cells, and no component of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
- Immunohistochemistry showing BCL6 positivity, BCL2 negativity or weak positivity, and a high proliferative fraction.
- Genomic studies showing no BCL2 amplification.
- Clinical features of nodal disease in the head and neck region, early clinical stage, age younger than 40 years, typically in a male with no internal nodes involved.
When FL occurs in AYAs, the diagnostic findings of pediatric-type FL suggest the patient will do well with conservative management (e.g., excision alone), Dr. Louissaint noted.
Two sizes do not fit all
The strategies that have improved cancer outcomes since the 1970s for children and older adults have been much less successful for AYAs with cancer.
As an oncologic community, we should not allow the AYA gap to persist. As always, the solutions are likely to involve focused clinical research, education, and communication. Effort will need to be targeted specifically to the AYA population.
Since health-related mortality is high even when cancer-specific outcomes improve, adopting and maintaining a healthy lifestyle must be a key part of the discussion with these young patients.
The biologic differences associated with AYA lymphomas demand participation in clinical trials.
Oncologists should vigorously support removing impediments to the participation of AYAs in prospective clinical trials, stratified (but unrestricted) by age, with careful analysis of patient-reported outcomes, late adverse effects, and biospecimen collection.
As Dr. Kelly noted in the question-and-answer period, the Children’s Oncology Group has an existing biobank of paraffin-embedded tumor samples, DNA from lymphoma specimens, plasma, and sera with clinically annotated data that can be given to investigators upon request and justification.
Going beyond eligibility for clinical trials
Unfortunately, we will likely find that broadening eligibility criteria is the “low-hanging fruit.” There are protocol-, patient-, and physician-related obstacles, according to a review published in Cancer in 2019.
Patient-related obstacles include fear of toxicity, uncertainty about placebos, a steep learning curve for health literacy, insurance-related impediments, and other access-related issues.
Discussions will need to be tailored to the AYA population. Frank, early conversations about fertility, sexuality, financial hardship, career advancement, work-life balance, and cognitive risks may not only facilitate treatment planning but also encourage the trust that is essential for patients to enroll in trials.
The investment in time, multidisciplinary staff and physician involvement, and potential delays in treatment initiation may be painful and inconvenient, but the benefits for long-term health outcomes and personal-professional relationships will be gratifying beyond measure.
Dr. Smith disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, Celgene, TGTX, Karyopharm, Janssen, and Bantem. Dr. Roth disclosed relationships with Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, and Celgene. Dr. Kelly and Dr. Louissaint had no financial relationships to disclose.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
FROM AACR ADVANCES IN MALIGNANT LYMPHOMA 2020
Survey quantifies COVID-19’s impact on oncology
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
FROM ESMO 2020
Hepatitis screening now for all patients with cancer on therapy
All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.
Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.
The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.
“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.
“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.
The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.
ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.
The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.
“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.
The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.
Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.
Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.
Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.
Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening
The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.
In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.
A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.
“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”
The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.
Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.
“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.
Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.
“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.
Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.
He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.
More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”
Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.
If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.
However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.
The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”
The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.
Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.
Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.
The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.
“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.
“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.
The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.
ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.
The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.
“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.
The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.
Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.
Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.
Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.
Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening
The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.
In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.
A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.
“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”
The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.
Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.
“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.
Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.
“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.
Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.
He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.
More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”
Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.
If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.
However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.
The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”
The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.
Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.
Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.
The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.
“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.
“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.
The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.
ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.
The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.
“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.
The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.
Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.
Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.
Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.
Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening
The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.
In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.
A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.
“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”
The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.
Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.
“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.
Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.
“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.
Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.
He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.
More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”
Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.
If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.
However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.
The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”
The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.
Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early screening may halve breast cancer mortality in childhood cancer survivors
Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.
Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.
“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
Implications for awareness, coverage
“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.
“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.
The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.
“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.
“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”
In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
Study details
Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.
The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.
The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.
The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.
Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.
These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.
For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.
For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.
After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.
Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.
Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.
“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
Implications for awareness, coverage
“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.
“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.
The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.
“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.
“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”
In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
Study details
Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.
The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.
The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.
The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.
Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.
These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.
For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.
For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.
After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.
Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.
Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.
“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
Implications for awareness, coverage
“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.
“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.
The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.
“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.
“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”
In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
Study details
Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.
The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.
The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.
The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.
Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.
These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.
For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.
For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.
After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Eczema may increase lymphoma risk, cohort studies suggest
according to two matched longitudinal cohort studies from England and Denmark.
“In this study, no evidence was found that people with atopic eczema are at increased risk of most cancers. An exception is the observed association between atopic eczema and lymphoma, particularly NHL, [which] increased with eczema severity,” Kathryn E. Mansfield, PhD, wrote in JAMA Dermatology. Adjusted hazard ratios for NHL in the English cohort were 1.06 (99% CI, 0.90-1.25) for mild atopic eczema, 1.24 (99% CI, 1.04-1.48) for moderate eczema, and 2.08 (99% CI, 1.42-3.04) for severe eczema, reported Dr. Mansfield of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and associates.
Past studies of a possible link between atopic eczema and cancer have produced conflicting evidence, which might reflect “two competing theories” – that cancer risk falls with greater immune surveillance, and that cancer risk rises with immune stimulation, the researchers wrote. Immunosuppressive treatment and an impaired skin barrier might also increase the risk of cancer, but the evidence is conflicting.
For the study, they analyzed electronic health records linked with hospital admissions and death records in England and national health registry data from Denmark. The English cohort included 471,970 adults with atopic eczema and 2,239,775 adults without atopic eczema. The Danish cohort was composed of individuals of any age, including 44,945 who had eczema and with 445,673 who did not. Participants were matched based on factors such as age, sex, and primary care practice. The researchers excluded individuals with a history of cancer, apart from nonmelanoma skin cancer or keratinocyte cancer. (For analyses of skin cancer risk, they also excluded individuals with a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer.)
Overall, there was “little evidence” for a link between atopic eczema and cancer (adjusted hazard ratio in England, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.02-1.06; aHR in Denmark, 1.05; 99% CI, 0.95-1.16) or for most specific types of cancer, the investigators wrote.
In England, however, eczema was associated with a significantly increased risk for noncutaneous lymphoma, with an adjusted HRs of 1.19 (99% CI, 1.07-1.34) for NHL, and 1.48 (99% CI, 1.07-2.04) for Hodgkin lymphoma. Lymphoma risk was highest among adults with severe eczema, defined as those who had been prescribed a systemic treatment for their disease, who had received phototherapy, or who had been referred to a specialist or admitted to a hospital for atopic eczema. Point estimates in the Danish cohort also revealed a higher risk for lymphoma among individuals with moderate to severe atopic eczema, compared with those with eczema, but the 99% CIs crossed 1.0.
The findings highlight the need to be aware of, screen for, and study the pathogenesis of heightened lymphoma risk among patients with atopic eczema, said Shawn Demehri, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and cancer center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.
“Prospectively collected data from large cohorts of eczema patients is a strength of this study,” he said in an interview. “However, the age range included in the study is suboptimal for assessing cancer as an outcome. The lower incidence of cancer in younger individuals hinders the ability to detect differences in cancer risk between the two groups.” (Approximately 57% of individuals in the English cohort were aged 18-44 years, while approximately 70% of those in the Danish cohort were less than 18 years.)
Understanding how eczema affects the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma is an important future direction of research, Dr. Demehri emphasized. “The landscape of atopic eczema therapeutics has dramatically changed in the recent years. It will be very interesting to determine how new biologics impact cancer risk in eczema patients.”
Partial support for the work was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the Royal Society, the Dagmar Marshalls Fund, and the Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Fund. Dr. Mansfield disclosed support from a Wellcome Trust grant. Her coinvestigators disclosed ties to TARGET-DERM, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, and from the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, the British Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK, and IMI Horizon 2020 funding BIOMAP. Dr. Demehri reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Mansfield KE et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1948.
according to two matched longitudinal cohort studies from England and Denmark.
“In this study, no evidence was found that people with atopic eczema are at increased risk of most cancers. An exception is the observed association between atopic eczema and lymphoma, particularly NHL, [which] increased with eczema severity,” Kathryn E. Mansfield, PhD, wrote in JAMA Dermatology. Adjusted hazard ratios for NHL in the English cohort were 1.06 (99% CI, 0.90-1.25) for mild atopic eczema, 1.24 (99% CI, 1.04-1.48) for moderate eczema, and 2.08 (99% CI, 1.42-3.04) for severe eczema, reported Dr. Mansfield of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and associates.
Past studies of a possible link between atopic eczema and cancer have produced conflicting evidence, which might reflect “two competing theories” – that cancer risk falls with greater immune surveillance, and that cancer risk rises with immune stimulation, the researchers wrote. Immunosuppressive treatment and an impaired skin barrier might also increase the risk of cancer, but the evidence is conflicting.
For the study, they analyzed electronic health records linked with hospital admissions and death records in England and national health registry data from Denmark. The English cohort included 471,970 adults with atopic eczema and 2,239,775 adults without atopic eczema. The Danish cohort was composed of individuals of any age, including 44,945 who had eczema and with 445,673 who did not. Participants were matched based on factors such as age, sex, and primary care practice. The researchers excluded individuals with a history of cancer, apart from nonmelanoma skin cancer or keratinocyte cancer. (For analyses of skin cancer risk, they also excluded individuals with a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer.)
Overall, there was “little evidence” for a link between atopic eczema and cancer (adjusted hazard ratio in England, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.02-1.06; aHR in Denmark, 1.05; 99% CI, 0.95-1.16) or for most specific types of cancer, the investigators wrote.
In England, however, eczema was associated with a significantly increased risk for noncutaneous lymphoma, with an adjusted HRs of 1.19 (99% CI, 1.07-1.34) for NHL, and 1.48 (99% CI, 1.07-2.04) for Hodgkin lymphoma. Lymphoma risk was highest among adults with severe eczema, defined as those who had been prescribed a systemic treatment for their disease, who had received phototherapy, or who had been referred to a specialist or admitted to a hospital for atopic eczema. Point estimates in the Danish cohort also revealed a higher risk for lymphoma among individuals with moderate to severe atopic eczema, compared with those with eczema, but the 99% CIs crossed 1.0.
The findings highlight the need to be aware of, screen for, and study the pathogenesis of heightened lymphoma risk among patients with atopic eczema, said Shawn Demehri, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and cancer center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.
“Prospectively collected data from large cohorts of eczema patients is a strength of this study,” he said in an interview. “However, the age range included in the study is suboptimal for assessing cancer as an outcome. The lower incidence of cancer in younger individuals hinders the ability to detect differences in cancer risk between the two groups.” (Approximately 57% of individuals in the English cohort were aged 18-44 years, while approximately 70% of those in the Danish cohort were less than 18 years.)
Understanding how eczema affects the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma is an important future direction of research, Dr. Demehri emphasized. “The landscape of atopic eczema therapeutics has dramatically changed in the recent years. It will be very interesting to determine how new biologics impact cancer risk in eczema patients.”
Partial support for the work was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the Royal Society, the Dagmar Marshalls Fund, and the Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Fund. Dr. Mansfield disclosed support from a Wellcome Trust grant. Her coinvestigators disclosed ties to TARGET-DERM, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, and from the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, the British Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK, and IMI Horizon 2020 funding BIOMAP. Dr. Demehri reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Mansfield KE et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1948.
according to two matched longitudinal cohort studies from England and Denmark.
“In this study, no evidence was found that people with atopic eczema are at increased risk of most cancers. An exception is the observed association between atopic eczema and lymphoma, particularly NHL, [which] increased with eczema severity,” Kathryn E. Mansfield, PhD, wrote in JAMA Dermatology. Adjusted hazard ratios for NHL in the English cohort were 1.06 (99% CI, 0.90-1.25) for mild atopic eczema, 1.24 (99% CI, 1.04-1.48) for moderate eczema, and 2.08 (99% CI, 1.42-3.04) for severe eczema, reported Dr. Mansfield of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and associates.
Past studies of a possible link between atopic eczema and cancer have produced conflicting evidence, which might reflect “two competing theories” – that cancer risk falls with greater immune surveillance, and that cancer risk rises with immune stimulation, the researchers wrote. Immunosuppressive treatment and an impaired skin barrier might also increase the risk of cancer, but the evidence is conflicting.
For the study, they analyzed electronic health records linked with hospital admissions and death records in England and national health registry data from Denmark. The English cohort included 471,970 adults with atopic eczema and 2,239,775 adults without atopic eczema. The Danish cohort was composed of individuals of any age, including 44,945 who had eczema and with 445,673 who did not. Participants were matched based on factors such as age, sex, and primary care practice. The researchers excluded individuals with a history of cancer, apart from nonmelanoma skin cancer or keratinocyte cancer. (For analyses of skin cancer risk, they also excluded individuals with a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer.)
Overall, there was “little evidence” for a link between atopic eczema and cancer (adjusted hazard ratio in England, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.02-1.06; aHR in Denmark, 1.05; 99% CI, 0.95-1.16) or for most specific types of cancer, the investigators wrote.
In England, however, eczema was associated with a significantly increased risk for noncutaneous lymphoma, with an adjusted HRs of 1.19 (99% CI, 1.07-1.34) for NHL, and 1.48 (99% CI, 1.07-2.04) for Hodgkin lymphoma. Lymphoma risk was highest among adults with severe eczema, defined as those who had been prescribed a systemic treatment for their disease, who had received phototherapy, or who had been referred to a specialist or admitted to a hospital for atopic eczema. Point estimates in the Danish cohort also revealed a higher risk for lymphoma among individuals with moderate to severe atopic eczema, compared with those with eczema, but the 99% CIs crossed 1.0.
The findings highlight the need to be aware of, screen for, and study the pathogenesis of heightened lymphoma risk among patients with atopic eczema, said Shawn Demehri, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and cancer center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.
“Prospectively collected data from large cohorts of eczema patients is a strength of this study,” he said in an interview. “However, the age range included in the study is suboptimal for assessing cancer as an outcome. The lower incidence of cancer in younger individuals hinders the ability to detect differences in cancer risk between the two groups.” (Approximately 57% of individuals in the English cohort were aged 18-44 years, while approximately 70% of those in the Danish cohort were less than 18 years.)
Understanding how eczema affects the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma is an important future direction of research, Dr. Demehri emphasized. “The landscape of atopic eczema therapeutics has dramatically changed in the recent years. It will be very interesting to determine how new biologics impact cancer risk in eczema patients.”
Partial support for the work was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the Royal Society, the Dagmar Marshalls Fund, and the Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Fund. Dr. Mansfield disclosed support from a Wellcome Trust grant. Her coinvestigators disclosed ties to TARGET-DERM, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, and from the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, the British Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK, and IMI Horizon 2020 funding BIOMAP. Dr. Demehri reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Mansfield KE et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1948.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Safe to skip radiotherapy with negative PET in Hodgkin lymphoma
and can skip the additional radiotherapy that is normally included in the combined modality treatment, say experts reporting the final results from an international phase 3 randomized trial dubbed HD17.
“Most patients with this disease will not need radiotherapy any longer,” concluded first author Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director in the department of hematology/oncology at the University Hospital Cologne (Germany).
Dr. Borchmann was speaking online as part of the virtual edition of the European Hematology Association 25th Annual Congress 2020.
“Importantly, the mortality of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma in the HD17 study did not differ from the normal healthy German population, and this is the first time we have had this finding in one of our studies,” he emphasized.
Dr. Borchmann added that positron emission tomography imaging is key in deciding which patients can skip radiation.
“We conclude from the HD17 trial that the combined modality concept can and should be replaced by a PET-guided omission of radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma,” he said.
“The vast majority of early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma patients can be treated with the brief and highly effective 2+2 chemotherapy alone,” he added.
Therefore, he continued, “PET-guided 2+2 chemotherapy is the new standard of care for the German Hodgkin study group,” which conducted the trial.
The use of both chemotherapy and radiation has long been a standard approach to treatment, and this combined modality treatment is highly effective, Dr. Borchmann explained. But it can cause long-term damage, and the known longer-term negative effects of radiotherapy, such as cardiovascular disease and second malignancies, are a particular concern because patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma are relatively young, with a median age of around 30 years at disease onset.
An expert approached for comment said that the momentum to skip radiotherapy when possible is an ongoing issue, and importantly, this study adds to those efforts.
“The treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has moved for many years now to less radiation therapy, and this trend will continue with the results of this study,” commented John G. Gribben, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program and medical director of the North East London Cancer Research Network Centre at Barts Cancer Center of Excellence and the London School of Medicine.
“We have moved to lower doses and involved fields with the intent of decreasing toxicity, and particularly long-term toxicity from radiotherapy,” he said in an interview.
HD17 study details
For the multicenter, phase 3 HD17 trial, Dr. Borchmann and colleagues turned to PET to identify patients who had and had not responded well to chemotherapy (PET negative and PET positive) and to determine if those who had responded well could safely avoid radiotherapy without compromising efficacy.
“We wanted to determine if we could reduce the treatment intensity by omission of radiotherapy in patients who respond very well to the systemic treatment, so who have a complete metabolic remission after the chemotherapy,” Dr. Borchmann said.
The 2+2 treatment approach includes two cycles of eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) and two subsequent cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine).
The trial enrolled 1,100 patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between January 2012 and March 2017. Of these, 979 patients had confirmed PET results, with 651 (66.5%) found to be PET negative, defined as having a Deauville score (DS) of less than 3 (DS3); 238 (24.3%) were DS3, and 90 (9.2%) were DS4.
The study met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years, with a PFS of 95.1% in the PET-guided group (n = 447), compared with 97.3% in the standard combined-modality treatment group (n = 428), over a median observation time of 45 months, for a difference of 2.2% (P = .12).
“We found that the survival levels were very high, and we can safely conclude the noninferiority of the PET-guided approach in PET-negative patients,” Dr. Borchmann said.
A further analysis showed that the 597 PET-negative patients who did not receive radiotherapy because of their PET status had 5-year PFS that was noninferior to the combined modality group (95.9% vs. 97.7%, respectively; P = .20).
And among 646 patients who received the 2+2 regimen plus radiotherapy, of those confirmed as PET positive (n = 328), the estimated 5-year PFS was significantly lower (94.2%), compared with those determined to be PET negative (n = 318; 97.6%; hazard ratio, 3.03).
A cut-off of DS4 for positivity was associated with a stronger effect, with a lower estimated 5-year PFS of 81.6% vs. 98.8% for DS3 patients and 97.6% for DS less than 3 (P < .0001).
“Only DS4 has a prognostic impact, but not DS3,” Dr. Borchmann said. “DS4 positivity indicates a relevant risk for treatment failure, however, there are few patients in this risk group (9.2% in this trial).”
The 5-year overall survival rates in an intent-to-treat analysis were 98.8% in the standard combined modality group and 98.4% in the PET-guided group.
With a median observation time of 47 months, there have been 10 fatal events in the trial out of 1,100 patients, including two Hodgkin lymphoma-related events and one treatment-related death.
“Overall, Hodgkin lymphoma or treatment-related mortality rates were extremely low,” Dr. Borchmann said.
The study was funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Borchmann and Dr. Gribben have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
and can skip the additional radiotherapy that is normally included in the combined modality treatment, say experts reporting the final results from an international phase 3 randomized trial dubbed HD17.
“Most patients with this disease will not need radiotherapy any longer,” concluded first author Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director in the department of hematology/oncology at the University Hospital Cologne (Germany).
Dr. Borchmann was speaking online as part of the virtual edition of the European Hematology Association 25th Annual Congress 2020.
“Importantly, the mortality of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma in the HD17 study did not differ from the normal healthy German population, and this is the first time we have had this finding in one of our studies,” he emphasized.
Dr. Borchmann added that positron emission tomography imaging is key in deciding which patients can skip radiation.
“We conclude from the HD17 trial that the combined modality concept can and should be replaced by a PET-guided omission of radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma,” he said.
“The vast majority of early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma patients can be treated with the brief and highly effective 2+2 chemotherapy alone,” he added.
Therefore, he continued, “PET-guided 2+2 chemotherapy is the new standard of care for the German Hodgkin study group,” which conducted the trial.
The use of both chemotherapy and radiation has long been a standard approach to treatment, and this combined modality treatment is highly effective, Dr. Borchmann explained. But it can cause long-term damage, and the known longer-term negative effects of radiotherapy, such as cardiovascular disease and second malignancies, are a particular concern because patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma are relatively young, with a median age of around 30 years at disease onset.
An expert approached for comment said that the momentum to skip radiotherapy when possible is an ongoing issue, and importantly, this study adds to those efforts.
“The treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has moved for many years now to less radiation therapy, and this trend will continue with the results of this study,” commented John G. Gribben, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program and medical director of the North East London Cancer Research Network Centre at Barts Cancer Center of Excellence and the London School of Medicine.
“We have moved to lower doses and involved fields with the intent of decreasing toxicity, and particularly long-term toxicity from radiotherapy,” he said in an interview.
HD17 study details
For the multicenter, phase 3 HD17 trial, Dr. Borchmann and colleagues turned to PET to identify patients who had and had not responded well to chemotherapy (PET negative and PET positive) and to determine if those who had responded well could safely avoid radiotherapy without compromising efficacy.
“We wanted to determine if we could reduce the treatment intensity by omission of radiotherapy in patients who respond very well to the systemic treatment, so who have a complete metabolic remission after the chemotherapy,” Dr. Borchmann said.
The 2+2 treatment approach includes two cycles of eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) and two subsequent cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine).
The trial enrolled 1,100 patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between January 2012 and March 2017. Of these, 979 patients had confirmed PET results, with 651 (66.5%) found to be PET negative, defined as having a Deauville score (DS) of less than 3 (DS3); 238 (24.3%) were DS3, and 90 (9.2%) were DS4.
The study met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years, with a PFS of 95.1% in the PET-guided group (n = 447), compared with 97.3% in the standard combined-modality treatment group (n = 428), over a median observation time of 45 months, for a difference of 2.2% (P = .12).
“We found that the survival levels were very high, and we can safely conclude the noninferiority of the PET-guided approach in PET-negative patients,” Dr. Borchmann said.
A further analysis showed that the 597 PET-negative patients who did not receive radiotherapy because of their PET status had 5-year PFS that was noninferior to the combined modality group (95.9% vs. 97.7%, respectively; P = .20).
And among 646 patients who received the 2+2 regimen plus radiotherapy, of those confirmed as PET positive (n = 328), the estimated 5-year PFS was significantly lower (94.2%), compared with those determined to be PET negative (n = 318; 97.6%; hazard ratio, 3.03).
A cut-off of DS4 for positivity was associated with a stronger effect, with a lower estimated 5-year PFS of 81.6% vs. 98.8% for DS3 patients and 97.6% for DS less than 3 (P < .0001).
“Only DS4 has a prognostic impact, but not DS3,” Dr. Borchmann said. “DS4 positivity indicates a relevant risk for treatment failure, however, there are few patients in this risk group (9.2% in this trial).”
The 5-year overall survival rates in an intent-to-treat analysis were 98.8% in the standard combined modality group and 98.4% in the PET-guided group.
With a median observation time of 47 months, there have been 10 fatal events in the trial out of 1,100 patients, including two Hodgkin lymphoma-related events and one treatment-related death.
“Overall, Hodgkin lymphoma or treatment-related mortality rates were extremely low,” Dr. Borchmann said.
The study was funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Borchmann and Dr. Gribben have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
and can skip the additional radiotherapy that is normally included in the combined modality treatment, say experts reporting the final results from an international phase 3 randomized trial dubbed HD17.
“Most patients with this disease will not need radiotherapy any longer,” concluded first author Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director in the department of hematology/oncology at the University Hospital Cologne (Germany).
Dr. Borchmann was speaking online as part of the virtual edition of the European Hematology Association 25th Annual Congress 2020.
“Importantly, the mortality of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma in the HD17 study did not differ from the normal healthy German population, and this is the first time we have had this finding in one of our studies,” he emphasized.
Dr. Borchmann added that positron emission tomography imaging is key in deciding which patients can skip radiation.
“We conclude from the HD17 trial that the combined modality concept can and should be replaced by a PET-guided omission of radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma,” he said.
“The vast majority of early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma patients can be treated with the brief and highly effective 2+2 chemotherapy alone,” he added.
Therefore, he continued, “PET-guided 2+2 chemotherapy is the new standard of care for the German Hodgkin study group,” which conducted the trial.
The use of both chemotherapy and radiation has long been a standard approach to treatment, and this combined modality treatment is highly effective, Dr. Borchmann explained. But it can cause long-term damage, and the known longer-term negative effects of radiotherapy, such as cardiovascular disease and second malignancies, are a particular concern because patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma are relatively young, with a median age of around 30 years at disease onset.
An expert approached for comment said that the momentum to skip radiotherapy when possible is an ongoing issue, and importantly, this study adds to those efforts.
“The treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has moved for many years now to less radiation therapy, and this trend will continue with the results of this study,” commented John G. Gribben, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program and medical director of the North East London Cancer Research Network Centre at Barts Cancer Center of Excellence and the London School of Medicine.
“We have moved to lower doses and involved fields with the intent of decreasing toxicity, and particularly long-term toxicity from radiotherapy,” he said in an interview.
HD17 study details
For the multicenter, phase 3 HD17 trial, Dr. Borchmann and colleagues turned to PET to identify patients who had and had not responded well to chemotherapy (PET negative and PET positive) and to determine if those who had responded well could safely avoid radiotherapy without compromising efficacy.
“We wanted to determine if we could reduce the treatment intensity by omission of radiotherapy in patients who respond very well to the systemic treatment, so who have a complete metabolic remission after the chemotherapy,” Dr. Borchmann said.
The 2+2 treatment approach includes two cycles of eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) and two subsequent cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine).
The trial enrolled 1,100 patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between January 2012 and March 2017. Of these, 979 patients had confirmed PET results, with 651 (66.5%) found to be PET negative, defined as having a Deauville score (DS) of less than 3 (DS3); 238 (24.3%) were DS3, and 90 (9.2%) were DS4.
The study met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years, with a PFS of 95.1% in the PET-guided group (n = 447), compared with 97.3% in the standard combined-modality treatment group (n = 428), over a median observation time of 45 months, for a difference of 2.2% (P = .12).
“We found that the survival levels were very high, and we can safely conclude the noninferiority of the PET-guided approach in PET-negative patients,” Dr. Borchmann said.
A further analysis showed that the 597 PET-negative patients who did not receive radiotherapy because of their PET status had 5-year PFS that was noninferior to the combined modality group (95.9% vs. 97.7%, respectively; P = .20).
And among 646 patients who received the 2+2 regimen plus radiotherapy, of those confirmed as PET positive (n = 328), the estimated 5-year PFS was significantly lower (94.2%), compared with those determined to be PET negative (n = 318; 97.6%; hazard ratio, 3.03).
A cut-off of DS4 for positivity was associated with a stronger effect, with a lower estimated 5-year PFS of 81.6% vs. 98.8% for DS3 patients and 97.6% for DS less than 3 (P < .0001).
“Only DS4 has a prognostic impact, but not DS3,” Dr. Borchmann said. “DS4 positivity indicates a relevant risk for treatment failure, however, there are few patients in this risk group (9.2% in this trial).”
The 5-year overall survival rates in an intent-to-treat analysis were 98.8% in the standard combined modality group and 98.4% in the PET-guided group.
With a median observation time of 47 months, there have been 10 fatal events in the trial out of 1,100 patients, including two Hodgkin lymphoma-related events and one treatment-related death.
“Overall, Hodgkin lymphoma or treatment-related mortality rates were extremely low,” Dr. Borchmann said.
The study was funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Borchmann and Dr. Gribben have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer risk elevated in hidradenitis suppurativa patients
.
HS is associated with severe comorbidities, and previous studies have suggested a link between HS and cancer development, wrote Joon Min Jung, MD, of the University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and colleagues.
“The aberrant immune response and chronic inflammation in HS and genetic and environmental factors associated with the disease may all be factors in the development of cancer,” but large, population-based studies of cancer in HS patients are limited, they noted.
In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers reviewed data from 22,468 adults with HS and 179,734 matched controls, in the Korean National Health Insurance System, seen by physicians between January 2009 and December 2017. The average age of the participants was 34 years, and 64% were male.
Overall, HS patients had a significantly higher risk of cancer compared with controls, with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.28.
As for specific cancers, HS patients had a significantly higher risk for Hodgkin lymphoma (aHR 5.08), oral cavity and pharyngeal cancer (aHR 3.10), central nervous system cancer (aHR 2.40), nonmelanoma skin cancer (aHR 2.06), prostate cancer (aHR 2.05), and colorectal cancer (aHR 1.45).
The risk of any cancer was not significantly different between women with HS and female controls (after adjustment for comorbidities), but was significantly higher among men with HS compared with male controls, also after adjustment for comorbidities (aHR, 1.37). In addition, HS patients in both younger (less than 40 years) and older (aged 40 years and older) age groups had increased cancer risk compared with age-matched controls. Overall cancer risk and the risk of most cancer types were higher among HS patients with moderate to severe disease than in those with mild disease, with the exception of nonmelanoma skin cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma, and leukemia.
“Overall cancer risk showed a tendency to increase with worsening HS severity, reinforcing the possibility of an association between HS and cancer development,” the researchers noted. “However, we could not identify tendencies in some specific cancers, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, CNS cancer, and prostate cancer, because the number of occurrences of those cancers was too small in the group with moderate to severe HS.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential underestimate of HS cases in the population and the inability of the study design to adjust for factors including smoking status, alcohol use, and obesity, the researchers noted. However, the results support an increased cancer risk in HS patients and suggest the need to promote lifestyle modifications to reduce risk, and to increase cancer surveillance in these patients, they said. “For early detection of skin cancer, more aggressive histologic examination and a high level of suspicion are required,” they added.
The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea and the Korea Health Technology R&D Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Jung JM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 27. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1422.
.
HS is associated with severe comorbidities, and previous studies have suggested a link between HS and cancer development, wrote Joon Min Jung, MD, of the University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and colleagues.
“The aberrant immune response and chronic inflammation in HS and genetic and environmental factors associated with the disease may all be factors in the development of cancer,” but large, population-based studies of cancer in HS patients are limited, they noted.
In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers reviewed data from 22,468 adults with HS and 179,734 matched controls, in the Korean National Health Insurance System, seen by physicians between January 2009 and December 2017. The average age of the participants was 34 years, and 64% were male.
Overall, HS patients had a significantly higher risk of cancer compared with controls, with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.28.
As for specific cancers, HS patients had a significantly higher risk for Hodgkin lymphoma (aHR 5.08), oral cavity and pharyngeal cancer (aHR 3.10), central nervous system cancer (aHR 2.40), nonmelanoma skin cancer (aHR 2.06), prostate cancer (aHR 2.05), and colorectal cancer (aHR 1.45).
The risk of any cancer was not significantly different between women with HS and female controls (after adjustment for comorbidities), but was significantly higher among men with HS compared with male controls, also after adjustment for comorbidities (aHR, 1.37). In addition, HS patients in both younger (less than 40 years) and older (aged 40 years and older) age groups had increased cancer risk compared with age-matched controls. Overall cancer risk and the risk of most cancer types were higher among HS patients with moderate to severe disease than in those with mild disease, with the exception of nonmelanoma skin cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma, and leukemia.
“Overall cancer risk showed a tendency to increase with worsening HS severity, reinforcing the possibility of an association between HS and cancer development,” the researchers noted. “However, we could not identify tendencies in some specific cancers, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, CNS cancer, and prostate cancer, because the number of occurrences of those cancers was too small in the group with moderate to severe HS.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential underestimate of HS cases in the population and the inability of the study design to adjust for factors including smoking status, alcohol use, and obesity, the researchers noted. However, the results support an increased cancer risk in HS patients and suggest the need to promote lifestyle modifications to reduce risk, and to increase cancer surveillance in these patients, they said. “For early detection of skin cancer, more aggressive histologic examination and a high level of suspicion are required,” they added.
The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea and the Korea Health Technology R&D Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Jung JM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 27. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1422.
.
HS is associated with severe comorbidities, and previous studies have suggested a link between HS and cancer development, wrote Joon Min Jung, MD, of the University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and colleagues.
“The aberrant immune response and chronic inflammation in HS and genetic and environmental factors associated with the disease may all be factors in the development of cancer,” but large, population-based studies of cancer in HS patients are limited, they noted.
In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers reviewed data from 22,468 adults with HS and 179,734 matched controls, in the Korean National Health Insurance System, seen by physicians between January 2009 and December 2017. The average age of the participants was 34 years, and 64% were male.
Overall, HS patients had a significantly higher risk of cancer compared with controls, with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.28.
As for specific cancers, HS patients had a significantly higher risk for Hodgkin lymphoma (aHR 5.08), oral cavity and pharyngeal cancer (aHR 3.10), central nervous system cancer (aHR 2.40), nonmelanoma skin cancer (aHR 2.06), prostate cancer (aHR 2.05), and colorectal cancer (aHR 1.45).
The risk of any cancer was not significantly different between women with HS and female controls (after adjustment for comorbidities), but was significantly higher among men with HS compared with male controls, also after adjustment for comorbidities (aHR, 1.37). In addition, HS patients in both younger (less than 40 years) and older (aged 40 years and older) age groups had increased cancer risk compared with age-matched controls. Overall cancer risk and the risk of most cancer types were higher among HS patients with moderate to severe disease than in those with mild disease, with the exception of nonmelanoma skin cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma, and leukemia.
“Overall cancer risk showed a tendency to increase with worsening HS severity, reinforcing the possibility of an association between HS and cancer development,” the researchers noted. “However, we could not identify tendencies in some specific cancers, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, CNS cancer, and prostate cancer, because the number of occurrences of those cancers was too small in the group with moderate to severe HS.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential underestimate of HS cases in the population and the inability of the study design to adjust for factors including smoking status, alcohol use, and obesity, the researchers noted. However, the results support an increased cancer risk in HS patients and suggest the need to promote lifestyle modifications to reduce risk, and to increase cancer surveillance in these patients, they said. “For early detection of skin cancer, more aggressive histologic examination and a high level of suspicion are required,” they added.
The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea and the Korea Health Technology R&D Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Jung JM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 27. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1422.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY