Lung Cancer

A Danish population-based cohort study by Ehrenstein and colleagues involved 21,282 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 8758 of whom received a diagnosis at stage I-IIIA. Of those, 4071 (46%) were tested for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations at diagnosis. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.7 years among patients with EGFR mutation–positive status (n = 361) and 4.4 years among patients with EGFR mutation–negative status (n = 3710). EGFR mutation–positive status was associated with lower all-cause mortality in all subgroups. This is not surprising, because EGFR-mutated lung cancers are associated with never or light smoking history and the patients tend to be younger and have fewer medical comorbidities. Nevertheless, the lower risk for all-cause mortality was consistent across all subgroups (stage at diagnosis, age, sex, comorbidity, and surgery receipt), with hazard ratios (HR) ranging from 0.48 to 0.83. In addition, targeted therapies, such as osimertinib, improved OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in the metastatic setting as first-line treatment. Now that the ADAURA study has demonstrated a substantial disease-free survival benefit with osimertinib in the adjuvant setting in early-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC (with final OS results still to come) it will be interesting to see whether this magnitude of difference in OS grows over time.

Wang and colleagues conducted a large meta-analysis of 10 retrospective studies and one prospective study including a total of 5892 patients with NSCLC who were receiving programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors with the concomitant use of gastric acid suppressants (GAS). Use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with vs without GAS worsened PFS by 32% (HR 1.32; P < .001) and OS by 36% (HR 1.36; P < .001). The GAS in these studies were predominantly proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). There is still much to learn about medications that may influence outcomes to immune checkpoint blockade, such as steroids, antibiotics, GAS, and others. We are also learning that the microbiome probably plays an important role in contributing to activity of PD-1/PDL-1 antibodies and PPI may modify the microbiome. More research is needed, but it is reasonable to try and switch patients receiving PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors from PPI to other GAS, if clinically appropriate.

Nazha and colleagues performed a SEER-Medicare database analysis evaluating 367,750 patients with lung cancer. A total of 11,061 patients had an initial prostate cancer diagnosis and subsequent lung cancer diagnosis, 3017 had an initial lung cancer diagnosis and subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis, and the remaining patients had an isolated lung cancer diagnosis. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a previously diagnosed prostate cancer showed improved survival after lung cancer diagnosis (adjusted HR for death 0.88; P = .02) and a shorter latency period to the diagnosis of lung cancer (40 vs 47 months; P < .001) compared with those who did not receive ADT. This finding applied mainly to White patients and may not apply to Black patients because there was an underrepresentation of Black patients in the study. The association of ADT for prostate cancer improving clinical outcomes in patients subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer is intriguing. There is known crosstalk between receptor kinase signaling and androgen receptor signaling that may biologically explain the findings in this study. This theoretically could apply more to certain molecular subtypes of lung cancer, such as EGFR-mutated lung cancer. However, further studies are needed to confirm this because confounding factors and immortal time bias (where patients receiving ADT may be more likely to have more frequent interactions in the healthcare system and thus receive an earlier lung cancer diagnosis) may in part explain the findings in this retrospective analysis. More research is needed to determine whether patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT had improved survival compared with those who did not receive ADT.

A Danish population-based cohort study by Ehrenstein and colleagues involved 21,282 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 8758 of whom received a diagnosis at stage I-IIIA. Of those, 4071 (46%) were tested for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations at diagnosis. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.7 years among patients with EGFR mutation–positive status (n = 361) and 4.4 years among patients with EGFR mutation–negative status (n = 3710). EGFR mutation–positive status was associated with lower all-cause mortality in all subgroups. This is not surprising, because EGFR-mutated lung cancers are associated with never or light smoking history and the patients tend to be younger and have fewer medical comorbidities. Nevertheless, the lower risk for all-cause mortality was consistent across all subgroups (stage at diagnosis, age, sex, comorbidity, and surgery receipt), with hazard ratios (HR) ranging from 0.48 to 0.83. In addition, targeted therapies, such as osimertinib, improved OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in the metastatic setting as first-line treatment. Now that the ADAURA study has demonstrated a substantial disease-free survival benefit with osimertinib in the adjuvant setting in early-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC (with final OS results still to come) it will be interesting to see whether this magnitude of difference in OS grows over time.

Wang and colleagues conducted a large meta-analysis of 10 retrospective studies and one prospective study including a total of 5892 patients with NSCLC who were receiving programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors with the concomitant use of gastric acid suppressants (GAS). Use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with vs without GAS worsened PFS by 32% (HR 1.32; P < .001) and OS by 36% (HR 1.36; P < .001). The GAS in these studies were predominantly proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). There is still much to learn about medications that may influence outcomes to immune checkpoint blockade, such as steroids, antibiotics, GAS, and others. We are also learning that the microbiome probably plays an important role in contributing to activity of PD-1/PDL-1 antibodies and PPI may modify the microbiome. More research is needed, but it is reasonable to try and switch patients receiving PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors from PPI to other GAS, if clinically appropriate.

Nazha and colleagues performed a SEER-Medicare database analysis evaluating 367,750 patients with lung cancer. A total of 11,061 patients had an initial prostate cancer diagnosis and subsequent lung cancer diagnosis, 3017 had an initial lung cancer diagnosis and subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis, and the remaining patients had an isolated lung cancer diagnosis. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a previously diagnosed prostate cancer showed improved survival after lung cancer diagnosis (adjusted HR for death 0.88; P = .02) and a shorter latency period to the diagnosis of lung cancer (40 vs 47 months; P < .001) compared with those who did not receive ADT. This finding applied mainly to White patients and may not apply to Black patients because there was an underrepresentation of Black patients in the study. The association of ADT for prostate cancer improving clinical outcomes in patients subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer is intriguing. There is known crosstalk between receptor kinase signaling and androgen receptor signaling that may biologically explain the findings in this study. This theoretically could apply more to certain molecular subtypes of lung cancer, such as EGFR-mutated lung cancer. However, further studies are needed to confirm this because confounding factors and immortal time bias (where patients receiving ADT may be more likely to have more frequent interactions in the healthcare system and thus receive an earlier lung cancer diagnosis) may in part explain the findings in this retrospective analysis. More research is needed to determine whether patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT had improved survival compared with those who did not receive ADT.

A Danish population-based cohort study by Ehrenstein and colleagues involved 21,282 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 8758 of whom received a diagnosis at stage I-IIIA. Of those, 4071 (46%) were tested for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations at diagnosis. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.7 years among patients with EGFR mutation–positive status (n = 361) and 4.4 years among patients with EGFR mutation–negative status (n = 3710). EGFR mutation–positive status was associated with lower all-cause mortality in all subgroups. This is not surprising, because EGFR-mutated lung cancers are associated with never or light smoking history and the patients tend to be younger and have fewer medical comorbidities. Nevertheless, the lower risk for all-cause mortality was consistent across all subgroups (stage at diagnosis, age, sex, comorbidity, and surgery receipt), with hazard ratios (HR) ranging from 0.48 to 0.83. In addition, targeted therapies, such as osimertinib, improved OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in the metastatic setting as first-line treatment. Now that the ADAURA study has demonstrated a substantial disease-free survival benefit with osimertinib in the adjuvant setting in early-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC (with final OS results still to come) it will be interesting to see whether this magnitude of difference in OS grows over time.

Wang and colleagues conducted a large meta-analysis of 10 retrospective studies and one prospective study including a total of 5892 patients with NSCLC who were receiving programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors with the concomitant use of gastric acid suppressants (GAS). Use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with vs without GAS worsened PFS by 32% (HR 1.32; P < .001) and OS by 36% (HR 1.36; P < .001). The GAS in these studies were predominantly proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). There is still much to learn about medications that may influence outcomes to immune checkpoint blockade, such as steroids, antibiotics, GAS, and others. We are also learning that the microbiome probably plays an important role in contributing to activity of PD-1/PDL-1 antibodies and PPI may modify the microbiome. More research is needed, but it is reasonable to try and switch patients receiving PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors from PPI to other GAS, if clinically appropriate.

Nazha and colleagues performed a SEER-Medicare database analysis evaluating 367,750 patients with lung cancer. A total of 11,061 patients had an initial prostate cancer diagnosis and subsequent lung cancer diagnosis, 3017 had an initial lung cancer diagnosis and subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis, and the remaining patients had an isolated lung cancer diagnosis. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a previously diagnosed prostate cancer showed improved survival after lung cancer diagnosis (adjusted HR for death 0.88; P = .02) and a shorter latency period to the diagnosis of lung cancer (40 vs 47 months; P < .001) compared with those who did not receive ADT. This finding applied mainly to White patients and may not apply to Black patients because there was an underrepresentation of Black patients in the study. The association of ADT for prostate cancer improving clinical outcomes in patients subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer is intriguing. There is known crosstalk between receptor kinase signaling and androgen receptor signaling that may biologically explain the findings in this study. This theoretically could apply more to certain molecular subtypes of lung cancer, such as EGFR-mutated lung cancer. However, further studies are needed to confirm this because confounding factors and immortal time bias (where patients receiving ADT may be more likely to have more frequent interactions in the healthcare system and thus receive an earlier lung cancer diagnosis) may in part explain the findings in this retrospective analysis. More research is needed to determine whether patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT had improved survival compared with those who did not receive ADT.

There is a growing body of evidence to show that air pollution is a major risk factor for lung cancer among never-smokers, although there is less certainty about the duration of exposure to fine particulate matter in ambient air as it relates to risk for lung cancer.

But as Canadian researchers now report, even 20 years of data on cumulative exposure to air pollution may underestimate the magnitude of the effect, especially among people diagnosed with lung cancer who have migrated from regions where heavy air pollution is the norm.

In a study of Canadian women with newly diagnosed lung cancer who never smoked, Renelle Myers, MD, FRCPC, from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and colleagues found that shorter-term assessment of cumulative exposure to ambient air particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) may underestimate the health effects of chronic exposure to pollution, especially among those patients who had migrated to Canada after living in areas of high PM2.5 exposure for long periods of time.

“Our study points to the importance of incorporating this long-term cumulative exposure to air pollutants in the assessment of individual lung cancer risk, of course in combination with traditional risk factors, and depending on the country of residence, I think that even a 20-year cumulative exposure may underestimate the effects of PM2.5, as we’re not capturing childhood or adolescent exposure when the lung is developing, and what effect that will have,” she said in an oral abstract presented at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.
 

Satellite data on local pollution

With the objective of comparing cumulative 3-year vs. 20-year exposure to PM2.5 in women who had never smoked and had a new diagnosis of lung cancer, Dr. Myers and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study.

They recruited a total of 236 women and had them fill out a detailed residential history questionnaire, and demographic details including age, race, country of birth, arrival in Canada for those born out of the country, occupations, family history of lung cancer, and exposure to second-hand smoke.

The investigators linked local addresses or postal to satellite-derived data on local PM2.5 levels, which first became available in 1996.

The median age of participants was 66.1 years. Of the 236 participants, 190 (80.5%) were born outside of Canada, and came to the country at the median age of 45. About half of all participants came from mainland China or Hong Kong, and another one-third came from elsewhere in Asia.

Tumor histologies included adenocarcinomas in 219 patients, squamous cell carcinoma in 1, and other types in 16 patients. Slightly more than half of the patients (55.%) had stage III or IV disease at diagnosis. In all, 106 of 227 evaluable patients had EGFR mutations.

3 years not enough

Among the foreign-born patients, only 4 (2%) had 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³, but 38 (20%) had 20-year cumulative exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³ (P < .0001).

All of the patients had cumulative PM2.5 exposures greater than 5 mcg/m³.

Comparing patients with and without EGFR mutations, the investigators found that higher 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure was significantly associated with EGFR mutations compared with nonmutated cancers (P = .049), but there was no significant association with higher 20-year cumulative exposures.

“The significance of this study really captures that short term or at least less than 3-year cumulative exposure risk for PM2.5 will probably underestimate the adverse effects that chronic exposure to air pollution has, especially among patients who lived elsewhere that may have had higher exposure throughout their lifetime than where you actually meet them,” Dr. Myers said in a media briefing held prior to her presentation.
 

Lung cancer in female nonsmokers

During the oral abstract session, invited discussant Chang-Chuan Chan, ScD, National Taiwan University, Taipei, said that the study’s focus on female patients with lung cancer is important. He pointed to a 2019 study examining the relationship between air pollution and lung cancer among nonsmokers in Taiwan, in which the authors found that, although smoking levels among women remained low over time (about 5%), the incidence of lung adenocarcinomas among women increased from 7.05 per 100,000 in 1995, to 24.22 per 100,000 in 2015.

The authors of that study also found that changes in PM2.5 levels in Taiwan were predictive of fluctuations in lung cancer prevalence in never-smokers.

“We’re moving from 50-year studies of smoking to these new issues of air pollution, asbestos, and radon, and I think it’s better that these three factors can be combined together,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The study was supported by the BC Cancer Foundation, Terry Fox Research Institute, and VGH-UBC Hospital Foundation. Dr. Myers and Dr. Chan reported having no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

There is a growing body of evidence to show that air pollution is a major risk factor for lung cancer among never-smokers, although there is less certainty about the duration of exposure to fine particulate matter in ambient air as it relates to risk for lung cancer.

But as Canadian researchers now report, even 20 years of data on cumulative exposure to air pollution may underestimate the magnitude of the effect, especially among people diagnosed with lung cancer who have migrated from regions where heavy air pollution is the norm.

In a study of Canadian women with newly diagnosed lung cancer who never smoked, Renelle Myers, MD, FRCPC, from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and colleagues found that shorter-term assessment of cumulative exposure to ambient air particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) may underestimate the health effects of chronic exposure to pollution, especially among those patients who had migrated to Canada after living in areas of high PM2.5 exposure for long periods of time.

“Our study points to the importance of incorporating this long-term cumulative exposure to air pollutants in the assessment of individual lung cancer risk, of course in combination with traditional risk factors, and depending on the country of residence, I think that even a 20-year cumulative exposure may underestimate the effects of PM2.5, as we’re not capturing childhood or adolescent exposure when the lung is developing, and what effect that will have,” she said in an oral abstract presented at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.
 

Satellite data on local pollution

With the objective of comparing cumulative 3-year vs. 20-year exposure to PM2.5 in women who had never smoked and had a new diagnosis of lung cancer, Dr. Myers and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study.

They recruited a total of 236 women and had them fill out a detailed residential history questionnaire, and demographic details including age, race, country of birth, arrival in Canada for those born out of the country, occupations, family history of lung cancer, and exposure to second-hand smoke.

The investigators linked local addresses or postal to satellite-derived data on local PM2.5 levels, which first became available in 1996.

The median age of participants was 66.1 years. Of the 236 participants, 190 (80.5%) were born outside of Canada, and came to the country at the median age of 45. About half of all participants came from mainland China or Hong Kong, and another one-third came from elsewhere in Asia.

Tumor histologies included adenocarcinomas in 219 patients, squamous cell carcinoma in 1, and other types in 16 patients. Slightly more than half of the patients (55.%) had stage III or IV disease at diagnosis. In all, 106 of 227 evaluable patients had EGFR mutations.

3 years not enough

Among the foreign-born patients, only 4 (2%) had 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³, but 38 (20%) had 20-year cumulative exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³ (P < .0001).

All of the patients had cumulative PM2.5 exposures greater than 5 mcg/m³.

Comparing patients with and without EGFR mutations, the investigators found that higher 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure was significantly associated with EGFR mutations compared with nonmutated cancers (P = .049), but there was no significant association with higher 20-year cumulative exposures.

“The significance of this study really captures that short term or at least less than 3-year cumulative exposure risk for PM2.5 will probably underestimate the adverse effects that chronic exposure to air pollution has, especially among patients who lived elsewhere that may have had higher exposure throughout their lifetime than where you actually meet them,” Dr. Myers said in a media briefing held prior to her presentation.
 

Lung cancer in female nonsmokers

During the oral abstract session, invited discussant Chang-Chuan Chan, ScD, National Taiwan University, Taipei, said that the study’s focus on female patients with lung cancer is important. He pointed to a 2019 study examining the relationship between air pollution and lung cancer among nonsmokers in Taiwan, in which the authors found that, although smoking levels among women remained low over time (about 5%), the incidence of lung adenocarcinomas among women increased from 7.05 per 100,000 in 1995, to 24.22 per 100,000 in 2015.

The authors of that study also found that changes in PM2.5 levels in Taiwan were predictive of fluctuations in lung cancer prevalence in never-smokers.

“We’re moving from 50-year studies of smoking to these new issues of air pollution, asbestos, and radon, and I think it’s better that these three factors can be combined together,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The study was supported by the BC Cancer Foundation, Terry Fox Research Institute, and VGH-UBC Hospital Foundation. Dr. Myers and Dr. Chan reported having no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

There is a growing body of evidence to show that air pollution is a major risk factor for lung cancer among never-smokers, although there is less certainty about the duration of exposure to fine particulate matter in ambient air as it relates to risk for lung cancer.

But as Canadian researchers now report, even 20 years of data on cumulative exposure to air pollution may underestimate the magnitude of the effect, especially among people diagnosed with lung cancer who have migrated from regions where heavy air pollution is the norm.

In a study of Canadian women with newly diagnosed lung cancer who never smoked, Renelle Myers, MD, FRCPC, from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and colleagues found that shorter-term assessment of cumulative exposure to ambient air particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) may underestimate the health effects of chronic exposure to pollution, especially among those patients who had migrated to Canada after living in areas of high PM2.5 exposure for long periods of time.

“Our study points to the importance of incorporating this long-term cumulative exposure to air pollutants in the assessment of individual lung cancer risk, of course in combination with traditional risk factors, and depending on the country of residence, I think that even a 20-year cumulative exposure may underestimate the effects of PM2.5, as we’re not capturing childhood or adolescent exposure when the lung is developing, and what effect that will have,” she said in an oral abstract presented at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.
 

Satellite data on local pollution

With the objective of comparing cumulative 3-year vs. 20-year exposure to PM2.5 in women who had never smoked and had a new diagnosis of lung cancer, Dr. Myers and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study.

They recruited a total of 236 women and had them fill out a detailed residential history questionnaire, and demographic details including age, race, country of birth, arrival in Canada for those born out of the country, occupations, family history of lung cancer, and exposure to second-hand smoke.

The investigators linked local addresses or postal to satellite-derived data on local PM2.5 levels, which first became available in 1996.

The median age of participants was 66.1 years. Of the 236 participants, 190 (80.5%) were born outside of Canada, and came to the country at the median age of 45. About half of all participants came from mainland China or Hong Kong, and another one-third came from elsewhere in Asia.

Tumor histologies included adenocarcinomas in 219 patients, squamous cell carcinoma in 1, and other types in 16 patients. Slightly more than half of the patients (55.%) had stage III or IV disease at diagnosis. In all, 106 of 227 evaluable patients had EGFR mutations.

3 years not enough

Among the foreign-born patients, only 4 (2%) had 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³, but 38 (20%) had 20-year cumulative exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³ (P < .0001).

All of the patients had cumulative PM2.5 exposures greater than 5 mcg/m³.

Comparing patients with and without EGFR mutations, the investigators found that higher 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure was significantly associated with EGFR mutations compared with nonmutated cancers (P = .049), but there was no significant association with higher 20-year cumulative exposures.

“The significance of this study really captures that short term or at least less than 3-year cumulative exposure risk for PM2.5 will probably underestimate the adverse effects that chronic exposure to air pollution has, especially among patients who lived elsewhere that may have had higher exposure throughout their lifetime than where you actually meet them,” Dr. Myers said in a media briefing held prior to her presentation.
 

Lung cancer in female nonsmokers

During the oral abstract session, invited discussant Chang-Chuan Chan, ScD, National Taiwan University, Taipei, said that the study’s focus on female patients with lung cancer is important. He pointed to a 2019 study examining the relationship between air pollution and lung cancer among nonsmokers in Taiwan, in which the authors found that, although smoking levels among women remained low over time (about 5%), the incidence of lung adenocarcinomas among women increased from 7.05 per 100,000 in 1995, to 24.22 per 100,000 in 2015.

The authors of that study also found that changes in PM2.5 levels in Taiwan were predictive of fluctuations in lung cancer prevalence in never-smokers.

“We’re moving from 50-year studies of smoking to these new issues of air pollution, asbestos, and radon, and I think it’s better that these three factors can be combined together,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The study was supported by the BC Cancer Foundation, Terry Fox Research Institute, and VGH-UBC Hospital Foundation. Dr. Myers and Dr. Chan reported having no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Nearly one-third of smokers who were offered smoking cessation support on the spot when they showed up for lung cancer screening remained off cigarettes 1 year later, a quit-smoking rate considerably higher than that reported in clinical studies, investigators from the United Kingdom found.

When they added a stop-smoking component to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, Rachael Murray, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Nottingham (England), found that immediately offering a combination of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy to help smokers kick the habit resulted in a 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence rate at 3 months of 30% among smokers randomized to a standard smoking cessation program, and 33.6% among patients randomized to also receive a personalized intervention that included images of their heart and lungs to demonstrate the harmful effects of tobacco.

In contrast, smoking cessation rates reported in trials of lung cancer screening have ranged from approximately 10% to 20%.

Although there was no overall statistical difference in quit-smoking rates between the standard and enhanced intervention arms of the study, the investigators found that women, but not men, were significantly more likely to quit when shown the heart and lung images, compared with those who received the standard smoking cessation support, Dr. Murray said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer held this week in Vienna.

“I think having smoking cessation as an integrated part of the lung cancer track was really positively received by our participants, particularly through having a physical presence and being conveniently located within the setting,” she said in a presidential symposium highlighting the best abstracts presented at the meeting.

“We’ve offered a high-intensity intervention, which is not going to be cheap to offer but I think is really important for these individuals with complex smoking histories and multiple comorbidities,” she added.
 

No judgment

In an interview, Dr. Murray noted that colocating stop-smoking services with lung screening is important for capturing smokers who may have the will but not the means to quit, and that participants especially appreciated the offer of help without the usual condescending attitude.

“We’re not an add-on: We’re there and physically present at the time of the lung health check,” she said. “It’s a standard of care that our smoking cessation advisers are able to provide. It’s very nonjudgmental and very holistic, providing social support that these people need. They’ve got long smoking histories, and they’re often made to feel guilty for that, and just being able to approach them in a nonjudgmental way makes a big difference.”

Smoking cessation is known to be the most effective way to reduce lung cancer deaths, Dr. Murray said in her presentation, pointing to a 2020 study by University of Michigan researchers showing that adding tobacco treatment to lung cancer screening can reduce deaths by 14% and increase the overall number of life-years gained by 81%.
 

Reduce smoking?

To see whether adding a personalized on-site smoking cessation program to lung cancer screening could improve quit-smoking rates, Dr. Murray and colleagues enrolled 1,003 smokers who attended the lung cancer screening program and randomly assigned them to either the intervention arm with personalized feedback, supportive communications, ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy, or to a control arm consisting of ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy.

Participants in the intervention arm were shown CT scans of the heart and lungs plus drawings highlighting coronary artery calcification and areas of their lungs damaged by smoking, and information on how quitting smoking can help to improve their health. The smoking cessation advisers followed a tightly controlled script to ensure that the messages were delivered in a uniform fashion to all participants.

As noted before, rates of 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence, measured by exhaled carbon dioxide, were 33.8% in the intervention arm, and 30% in the control arm. The respective costs per quitter were £521.30 ($630.77) and £412.80 ($499.48).

The validated 12-month smoking-free rates were 29.% in the intervention arm, and 28.6% in the control arm. None of the differences were statistically significant.

However, when they looked at between-arm differences by sex, the investigators found that significantly more women assigned to the intervention arm remained abstinent at 3 months, with rates of 33.9% compared with 23.1% of controls, a difference that translated into an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.70 favoring the intervention among women (P = .008).
 

Effective and durable

“My interpretation of this study is that the abstinence rates were very high, and this in fact was durable because this effect was maintained after 12 months,” commented invited discussant and smoking cessation expert Jacek Jassem, MD, from the University of Gdansk (Poland).

He said that the lack of a difference between the intervention and control arms might be attributable to lower levels of concern about heart disease or emphysema among participants, or possibly to the efficacy of the on-site support program itself.

The differences in efficacy of the intervention between men and women suggest that there may be a need for a sex- or gender-adapted approach, he said at the conference sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“Lung cancer screening is a unique opportunity to motivate smoking cessation. All cancer screening programs should included best available and ongoing cessation support, and please, don’t blame smoking persons: Be compassionate, and helpful, and smile like our British colleagues did,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research. Dr. Murray and Dr. Jassem reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Nearly one-third of smokers who were offered smoking cessation support on the spot when they showed up for lung cancer screening remained off cigarettes 1 year later, a quit-smoking rate considerably higher than that reported in clinical studies, investigators from the United Kingdom found.

When they added a stop-smoking component to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, Rachael Murray, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Nottingham (England), found that immediately offering a combination of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy to help smokers kick the habit resulted in a 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence rate at 3 months of 30% among smokers randomized to a standard smoking cessation program, and 33.6% among patients randomized to also receive a personalized intervention that included images of their heart and lungs to demonstrate the harmful effects of tobacco.

In contrast, smoking cessation rates reported in trials of lung cancer screening have ranged from approximately 10% to 20%.

Although there was no overall statistical difference in quit-smoking rates between the standard and enhanced intervention arms of the study, the investigators found that women, but not men, were significantly more likely to quit when shown the heart and lung images, compared with those who received the standard smoking cessation support, Dr. Murray said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer held this week in Vienna.

“I think having smoking cessation as an integrated part of the lung cancer track was really positively received by our participants, particularly through having a physical presence and being conveniently located within the setting,” she said in a presidential symposium highlighting the best abstracts presented at the meeting.

“We’ve offered a high-intensity intervention, which is not going to be cheap to offer but I think is really important for these individuals with complex smoking histories and multiple comorbidities,” she added.
 

No judgment

In an interview, Dr. Murray noted that colocating stop-smoking services with lung screening is important for capturing smokers who may have the will but not the means to quit, and that participants especially appreciated the offer of help without the usual condescending attitude.

“We’re not an add-on: We’re there and physically present at the time of the lung health check,” she said. “It’s a standard of care that our smoking cessation advisers are able to provide. It’s very nonjudgmental and very holistic, providing social support that these people need. They’ve got long smoking histories, and they’re often made to feel guilty for that, and just being able to approach them in a nonjudgmental way makes a big difference.”

Smoking cessation is known to be the most effective way to reduce lung cancer deaths, Dr. Murray said in her presentation, pointing to a 2020 study by University of Michigan researchers showing that adding tobacco treatment to lung cancer screening can reduce deaths by 14% and increase the overall number of life-years gained by 81%.
 

Reduce smoking?

To see whether adding a personalized on-site smoking cessation program to lung cancer screening could improve quit-smoking rates, Dr. Murray and colleagues enrolled 1,003 smokers who attended the lung cancer screening program and randomly assigned them to either the intervention arm with personalized feedback, supportive communications, ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy, or to a control arm consisting of ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy.

Participants in the intervention arm were shown CT scans of the heart and lungs plus drawings highlighting coronary artery calcification and areas of their lungs damaged by smoking, and information on how quitting smoking can help to improve their health. The smoking cessation advisers followed a tightly controlled script to ensure that the messages were delivered in a uniform fashion to all participants.

As noted before, rates of 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence, measured by exhaled carbon dioxide, were 33.8% in the intervention arm, and 30% in the control arm. The respective costs per quitter were £521.30 ($630.77) and £412.80 ($499.48).

The validated 12-month smoking-free rates were 29.% in the intervention arm, and 28.6% in the control arm. None of the differences were statistically significant.

However, when they looked at between-arm differences by sex, the investigators found that significantly more women assigned to the intervention arm remained abstinent at 3 months, with rates of 33.9% compared with 23.1% of controls, a difference that translated into an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.70 favoring the intervention among women (P = .008).
 

Effective and durable

“My interpretation of this study is that the abstinence rates were very high, and this in fact was durable because this effect was maintained after 12 months,” commented invited discussant and smoking cessation expert Jacek Jassem, MD, from the University of Gdansk (Poland).

He said that the lack of a difference between the intervention and control arms might be attributable to lower levels of concern about heart disease or emphysema among participants, or possibly to the efficacy of the on-site support program itself.

The differences in efficacy of the intervention between men and women suggest that there may be a need for a sex- or gender-adapted approach, he said at the conference sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“Lung cancer screening is a unique opportunity to motivate smoking cessation. All cancer screening programs should included best available and ongoing cessation support, and please, don’t blame smoking persons: Be compassionate, and helpful, and smile like our British colleagues did,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research. Dr. Murray and Dr. Jassem reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Nearly one-third of smokers who were offered smoking cessation support on the spot when they showed up for lung cancer screening remained off cigarettes 1 year later, a quit-smoking rate considerably higher than that reported in clinical studies, investigators from the United Kingdom found.

When they added a stop-smoking component to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, Rachael Murray, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Nottingham (England), found that immediately offering a combination of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy to help smokers kick the habit resulted in a 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence rate at 3 months of 30% among smokers randomized to a standard smoking cessation program, and 33.6% among patients randomized to also receive a personalized intervention that included images of their heart and lungs to demonstrate the harmful effects of tobacco.

In contrast, smoking cessation rates reported in trials of lung cancer screening have ranged from approximately 10% to 20%.

Although there was no overall statistical difference in quit-smoking rates between the standard and enhanced intervention arms of the study, the investigators found that women, but not men, were significantly more likely to quit when shown the heart and lung images, compared with those who received the standard smoking cessation support, Dr. Murray said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer held this week in Vienna.

“I think having smoking cessation as an integrated part of the lung cancer track was really positively received by our participants, particularly through having a physical presence and being conveniently located within the setting,” she said in a presidential symposium highlighting the best abstracts presented at the meeting.

“We’ve offered a high-intensity intervention, which is not going to be cheap to offer but I think is really important for these individuals with complex smoking histories and multiple comorbidities,” she added.
 

No judgment

In an interview, Dr. Murray noted that colocating stop-smoking services with lung screening is important for capturing smokers who may have the will but not the means to quit, and that participants especially appreciated the offer of help without the usual condescending attitude.

“We’re not an add-on: We’re there and physically present at the time of the lung health check,” she said. “It’s a standard of care that our smoking cessation advisers are able to provide. It’s very nonjudgmental and very holistic, providing social support that these people need. They’ve got long smoking histories, and they’re often made to feel guilty for that, and just being able to approach them in a nonjudgmental way makes a big difference.”

Smoking cessation is known to be the most effective way to reduce lung cancer deaths, Dr. Murray said in her presentation, pointing to a 2020 study by University of Michigan researchers showing that adding tobacco treatment to lung cancer screening can reduce deaths by 14% and increase the overall number of life-years gained by 81%.
 

Reduce smoking?

To see whether adding a personalized on-site smoking cessation program to lung cancer screening could improve quit-smoking rates, Dr. Murray and colleagues enrolled 1,003 smokers who attended the lung cancer screening program and randomly assigned them to either the intervention arm with personalized feedback, supportive communications, ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy, or to a control arm consisting of ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy.

Participants in the intervention arm were shown CT scans of the heart and lungs plus drawings highlighting coronary artery calcification and areas of their lungs damaged by smoking, and information on how quitting smoking can help to improve their health. The smoking cessation advisers followed a tightly controlled script to ensure that the messages were delivered in a uniform fashion to all participants.

As noted before, rates of 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence, measured by exhaled carbon dioxide, were 33.8% in the intervention arm, and 30% in the control arm. The respective costs per quitter were £521.30 ($630.77) and £412.80 ($499.48).

The validated 12-month smoking-free rates were 29.% in the intervention arm, and 28.6% in the control arm. None of the differences were statistically significant.

However, when they looked at between-arm differences by sex, the investigators found that significantly more women assigned to the intervention arm remained abstinent at 3 months, with rates of 33.9% compared with 23.1% of controls, a difference that translated into an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.70 favoring the intervention among women (P = .008).
 

Effective and durable

“My interpretation of this study is that the abstinence rates were very high, and this in fact was durable because this effect was maintained after 12 months,” commented invited discussant and smoking cessation expert Jacek Jassem, MD, from the University of Gdansk (Poland).

He said that the lack of a difference between the intervention and control arms might be attributable to lower levels of concern about heart disease or emphysema among participants, or possibly to the efficacy of the on-site support program itself.

The differences in efficacy of the intervention between men and women suggest that there may be a need for a sex- or gender-adapted approach, he said at the conference sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“Lung cancer screening is a unique opportunity to motivate smoking cessation. All cancer screening programs should included best available and ongoing cessation support, and please, don’t blame smoking persons: Be compassionate, and helpful, and smile like our British colleagues did,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research. Dr. Murray and Dr. Jassem reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

About one in four patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have an unsatisfactory antibody response to the Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Booster vaccination increased binding and neutralizing antibody titers to Omicron, but antibody titers declined after 3 months. These data highlight the concern for patients with cancer given the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” wrote the authors, who were led by Rafi Ahmed, PhD, Emory University, Atlanta.

Researchers found that 18% had no detectable antibody at all and active treatment type had no association with vaccine response.

Researchers examined antibody titers among 82 NSCLC patients and 53 healthy volunteers. They collected blood samples longitudinally for analysis. While most patients had binding and neutralizing antibody titers that were comparable with healthy volunteers, 25% had poor responses, which led to six- to sevenfold lower titers than healthy controls. There was no association between worse vaccine responses and history of programmed death–1 monotherapy, chemotherapy, or both in combination. Receipt of a booster vaccine improved binding and neutralizing antibody titers to both the wild type and the Omicron variant, but 2-4 months after the booster there was a five- to sevenfold decrease in neutralizing titers to both the wild type and Omicron variant.

“This study indicates both the need to monitor our patients with lung cancer for response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, identify the nonresponders for follow-up and further attempts at immunization, and continue collecting and analyzing clinicodemographic information and biospecimens from our patients,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

Although the findings reveal potential concerns, the good news is that most patients NSCLC patients do respond normally to COVID-19 vaccination, said John D. Minna, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, lead author of the editorial.

He offered some advice to physicians. “You can test your patients using currently available [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments]–approved lab tests to determine what their antibody titers are. This should be done after boosting since titers will go down after time. We know that if a patient has lung cancer and they do get infected with SARS-CoV-2 that potentially they could develop serious COVID-19 disease. Besides giving antiviral treatment, it is important that they be closely monitored for symptoms of progression so if they need to be hospitalized it can be done in a prudent manner,” said Dr. Minna, who is director of the Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

No clinical details have emerged that might predict which patients have an insufficient response to vaccination. “When we started these studies, a lot of us thought that anyone who did not develop a good antibody response would be weak or sicker. For example, [patients with] late-stage disease, or having had a lot of therapy, or perhaps immune checkpoint blockade. However, none of these things are correlated. The main advice we are giving our lung cancer patients are to get vaccinated, get boosted (double boosted), and just do the smart thing to protect yourself from exposure,” he said.

For example, when traveling on a plane, patients should wear a mask. They should also avoid large indoor events. He also recommended that, following vaccination and boosters, patients seek out CLIA-certified tests to get their titer checked.

“Upon any COVID infection, even if their titer is at or above 80%, patients should see their physician to consider treatment with Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), which has emergency use authorization. For patients with a lower titer, it’s important to seek out a physician and consider Paxlovid and possibly antibody therapy. But these are individual decisions to be made with your doctor,” Dr. Minna said.

The next important research question is what happens to T-cell immune response following vaccination. “We know that a good cellular immune response is also important in preventing infection and severe infection, but we don’t yet know which persons (with or without cancer) have good T-cell responses. This information will also likely impact what we tell our patients and will add to the antibody data,” he said.

Studies are ongoing to determine specific T-cell responses to mRNA vaccines, and how well those T-cell responses respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the laboratory.

About one in four patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have an unsatisfactory antibody response to the Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Booster vaccination increased binding and neutralizing antibody titers to Omicron, but antibody titers declined after 3 months. These data highlight the concern for patients with cancer given the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” wrote the authors, who were led by Rafi Ahmed, PhD, Emory University, Atlanta.

Researchers found that 18% had no detectable antibody at all and active treatment type had no association with vaccine response.

Researchers examined antibody titers among 82 NSCLC patients and 53 healthy volunteers. They collected blood samples longitudinally for analysis. While most patients had binding and neutralizing antibody titers that were comparable with healthy volunteers, 25% had poor responses, which led to six- to sevenfold lower titers than healthy controls. There was no association between worse vaccine responses and history of programmed death–1 monotherapy, chemotherapy, or both in combination. Receipt of a booster vaccine improved binding and neutralizing antibody titers to both the wild type and the Omicron variant, but 2-4 months after the booster there was a five- to sevenfold decrease in neutralizing titers to both the wild type and Omicron variant.

“This study indicates both the need to monitor our patients with lung cancer for response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, identify the nonresponders for follow-up and further attempts at immunization, and continue collecting and analyzing clinicodemographic information and biospecimens from our patients,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

Although the findings reveal potential concerns, the good news is that most patients NSCLC patients do respond normally to COVID-19 vaccination, said John D. Minna, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, lead author of the editorial.

He offered some advice to physicians. “You can test your patients using currently available [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments]–approved lab tests to determine what their antibody titers are. This should be done after boosting since titers will go down after time. We know that if a patient has lung cancer and they do get infected with SARS-CoV-2 that potentially they could develop serious COVID-19 disease. Besides giving antiviral treatment, it is important that they be closely monitored for symptoms of progression so if they need to be hospitalized it can be done in a prudent manner,” said Dr. Minna, who is director of the Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

No clinical details have emerged that might predict which patients have an insufficient response to vaccination. “When we started these studies, a lot of us thought that anyone who did not develop a good antibody response would be weak or sicker. For example, [patients with] late-stage disease, or having had a lot of therapy, or perhaps immune checkpoint blockade. However, none of these things are correlated. The main advice we are giving our lung cancer patients are to get vaccinated, get boosted (double boosted), and just do the smart thing to protect yourself from exposure,” he said.

For example, when traveling on a plane, patients should wear a mask. They should also avoid large indoor events. He also recommended that, following vaccination and boosters, patients seek out CLIA-certified tests to get their titer checked.

“Upon any COVID infection, even if their titer is at or above 80%, patients should see their physician to consider treatment with Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), which has emergency use authorization. For patients with a lower titer, it’s important to seek out a physician and consider Paxlovid and possibly antibody therapy. But these are individual decisions to be made with your doctor,” Dr. Minna said.

The next important research question is what happens to T-cell immune response following vaccination. “We know that a good cellular immune response is also important in preventing infection and severe infection, but we don’t yet know which persons (with or without cancer) have good T-cell responses. This information will also likely impact what we tell our patients and will add to the antibody data,” he said.

Studies are ongoing to determine specific T-cell responses to mRNA vaccines, and how well those T-cell responses respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the laboratory.

About one in four patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have an unsatisfactory antibody response to the Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Booster vaccination increased binding and neutralizing antibody titers to Omicron, but antibody titers declined after 3 months. These data highlight the concern for patients with cancer given the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” wrote the authors, who were led by Rafi Ahmed, PhD, Emory University, Atlanta.

Researchers found that 18% had no detectable antibody at all and active treatment type had no association with vaccine response.

Researchers examined antibody titers among 82 NSCLC patients and 53 healthy volunteers. They collected blood samples longitudinally for analysis. While most patients had binding and neutralizing antibody titers that were comparable with healthy volunteers, 25% had poor responses, which led to six- to sevenfold lower titers than healthy controls. There was no association between worse vaccine responses and history of programmed death–1 monotherapy, chemotherapy, or both in combination. Receipt of a booster vaccine improved binding and neutralizing antibody titers to both the wild type and the Omicron variant, but 2-4 months after the booster there was a five- to sevenfold decrease in neutralizing titers to both the wild type and Omicron variant.

“This study indicates both the need to monitor our patients with lung cancer for response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, identify the nonresponders for follow-up and further attempts at immunization, and continue collecting and analyzing clinicodemographic information and biospecimens from our patients,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

Although the findings reveal potential concerns, the good news is that most patients NSCLC patients do respond normally to COVID-19 vaccination, said John D. Minna, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, lead author of the editorial.

He offered some advice to physicians. “You can test your patients using currently available [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments]–approved lab tests to determine what their antibody titers are. This should be done after boosting since titers will go down after time. We know that if a patient has lung cancer and they do get infected with SARS-CoV-2 that potentially they could develop serious COVID-19 disease. Besides giving antiviral treatment, it is important that they be closely monitored for symptoms of progression so if they need to be hospitalized it can be done in a prudent manner,” said Dr. Minna, who is director of the Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

No clinical details have emerged that might predict which patients have an insufficient response to vaccination. “When we started these studies, a lot of us thought that anyone who did not develop a good antibody response would be weak or sicker. For example, [patients with] late-stage disease, or having had a lot of therapy, or perhaps immune checkpoint blockade. However, none of these things are correlated. The main advice we are giving our lung cancer patients are to get vaccinated, get boosted (double boosted), and just do the smart thing to protect yourself from exposure,” he said.

For example, when traveling on a plane, patients should wear a mask. They should also avoid large indoor events. He also recommended that, following vaccination and boosters, patients seek out CLIA-certified tests to get their titer checked.

“Upon any COVID infection, even if their titer is at or above 80%, patients should see their physician to consider treatment with Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), which has emergency use authorization. For patients with a lower titer, it’s important to seek out a physician and consider Paxlovid and possibly antibody therapy. But these are individual decisions to be made with your doctor,” Dr. Minna said.

The next important research question is what happens to T-cell immune response following vaccination. “We know that a good cellular immune response is also important in preventing infection and severe infection, but we don’t yet know which persons (with or without cancer) have good T-cell responses. This information will also likely impact what we tell our patients and will add to the antibody data,” he said.

Studies are ongoing to determine specific T-cell responses to mRNA vaccines, and how well those T-cell responses respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the laboratory.

Key clinical point: A prospective cohort study found the cumulative incidence of myocarditis among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) to be 3%.

Major finding: Three cases (2 definite and 1 possible) of myocarditis were reported over a follow-up of 6 months, with all cases being mild and without major adverse cardiac events. The mean time to onset of myocarditis was 144 ± 3 days.

Study details: The data come from a real-world prospective cohort study involving 99 patients with lung cancer treated with ICI at a French university hospital.

Disclosures: No funding information was available. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Faubry C et al. A prospective study to detect immune checkpoint inhibitors associated with myocarditis among patients treated for lung cancer. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:878211 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.878211

Key clinical point: A prospective cohort study found the cumulative incidence of myocarditis among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) to be 3%.

Major finding: Three cases (2 definite and 1 possible) of myocarditis were reported over a follow-up of 6 months, with all cases being mild and without major adverse cardiac events. The mean time to onset of myocarditis was 144 ± 3 days.

Study details: The data come from a real-world prospective cohort study involving 99 patients with lung cancer treated with ICI at a French university hospital.

Disclosures: No funding information was available. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Faubry C et al. A prospective study to detect immune checkpoint inhibitors associated with myocarditis among patients treated for lung cancer. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:878211 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.878211

Key clinical point: A prospective cohort study found the cumulative incidence of myocarditis among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) to be 3%.

Major finding: Three cases (2 definite and 1 possible) of myocarditis were reported over a follow-up of 6 months, with all cases being mild and without major adverse cardiac events. The mean time to onset of myocarditis was 144 ± 3 days.

Study details: The data come from a real-world prospective cohort study involving 99 patients with lung cancer treated with ICI at a French university hospital.

Disclosures: No funding information was available. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Faubry C et al. A prospective study to detect immune checkpoint inhibitors associated with myocarditis among patients treated for lung cancer. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:878211 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.878211

Key clinical point: Airflow limitation is linked to an increased risk for lung cancer, with the association being pronounced in ever smokers.

Major finding: Airflow limitation vs no limitation was associated with a higher risk for lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.7; 95% CI 1.4-2.3). The association was greater among current smokers (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5-3.2) and former smokers (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.4-3.2) compared with never smokers (HR 0.9; 95% CI 0.4-2.1).

Study details: The data come from a prospective population-based cohort study involving 98,630 participants.

Disclosures: No funding information was available. HJM Groen, R Vliegenthart, and W Timens declared receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside this work. The other authors reported no disclosures.

Source: Du Y et al. Airflow limitation increases lung cancer risk in smokers: The Lifelines Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022;31(7):1442–1449  (May 9). Doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-1365

Key clinical point: Airflow limitation is linked to an increased risk for lung cancer, with the association being pronounced in ever smokers.

Major finding: Airflow limitation vs no limitation was associated with a higher risk for lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.7; 95% CI 1.4-2.3). The association was greater among current smokers (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5-3.2) and former smokers (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.4-3.2) compared with never smokers (HR 0.9; 95% CI 0.4-2.1).

Study details: The data come from a prospective population-based cohort study involving 98,630 participants.

Disclosures: No funding information was available. HJM Groen, R Vliegenthart, and W Timens declared receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside this work. The other authors reported no disclosures.

Source: Du Y et al. Airflow limitation increases lung cancer risk in smokers: The Lifelines Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022;31(7):1442–1449  (May 9). Doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-1365

Key clinical point: Airflow limitation is linked to an increased risk for lung cancer, with the association being pronounced in ever smokers.

Major finding: Airflow limitation vs no limitation was associated with a higher risk for lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.7; 95% CI 1.4-2.3). The association was greater among current smokers (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5-3.2) and former smokers (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.4-3.2) compared with never smokers (HR 0.9; 95% CI 0.4-2.1).

Study details: The data come from a prospective population-based cohort study involving 98,630 participants.

Disclosures: No funding information was available. HJM Groen, R Vliegenthart, and W Timens declared receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside this work. The other authors reported no disclosures.

Source: Du Y et al. Airflow limitation increases lung cancer risk in smokers: The Lifelines Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022;31(7):1442–1449  (May 9). Doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-1365

Key clinical point: Adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy improved relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with early-stage resected non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen being the most effective therapeutic method with tolerable toxicity.

Major finding: Compared with the observation (control) group, the chemotherapy group showed a significant RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; P < .0001) and OS (HR 0.80; P < .0001) advantage, with the benefits being most prominent with the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen (RFS: HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.87; and OS: HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.87). Hematological toxicities and nausea or vomiting were not higher with cisplatin-vinorelbine vs other chemotherapy regimens.

Study details: The data come from a systematic review with network meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials including 5483 participants.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation Project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Pang LL et al. Investigation of the optimal platinum-based regimen in the postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy setting for early-stage resected non-small lung cancer: A Bayesian network meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e057098 (Jun 13). Doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057098

Key clinical point: Adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy improved relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with early-stage resected non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen being the most effective therapeutic method with tolerable toxicity.

Major finding: Compared with the observation (control) group, the chemotherapy group showed a significant RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; P < .0001) and OS (HR 0.80; P < .0001) advantage, with the benefits being most prominent with the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen (RFS: HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.87; and OS: HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.87). Hematological toxicities and nausea or vomiting were not higher with cisplatin-vinorelbine vs other chemotherapy regimens.

Study details: The data come from a systematic review with network meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials including 5483 participants.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation Project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Pang LL et al. Investigation of the optimal platinum-based regimen in the postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy setting for early-stage resected non-small lung cancer: A Bayesian network meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e057098 (Jun 13). Doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057098

Key clinical point: Adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy improved relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with early-stage resected non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen being the most effective therapeutic method with tolerable toxicity.

Major finding: Compared with the observation (control) group, the chemotherapy group showed a significant RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; P < .0001) and OS (HR 0.80; P < .0001) advantage, with the benefits being most prominent with the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen (RFS: HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.87; and OS: HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.87). Hematological toxicities and nausea or vomiting were not higher with cisplatin-vinorelbine vs other chemotherapy regimens.

Study details: The data come from a systematic review with network meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials including 5483 participants.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation Project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Pang LL et al. Investigation of the optimal platinum-based regimen in the postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy setting for early-stage resected non-small lung cancer: A Bayesian network meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e057098 (Jun 13). Doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057098

Key clinical point: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for previously diagnosed prostate cancer may improve survival in patients subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer.

Major finding: Patients who received vs did not receive ADT for previously diagnosed prostate cancer showed improved survival after lung cancer diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio of death 0.88; P  =  .022) and a shorter latency period to the diagnosis of lung cancer (40 vs 47 months; P < .001).

Study details: This study evaluated 367,750 patients with lung cancer, of which 11,061 patients had an initial prostate cancer diagnosis and subsequent lung cancer diagnosis, 3017 had an initial lung cancer diagnosis and subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis, and the remaining patients had isolated lung cancer diagnosis.

Disclosures: This study received no external funding. B Nazha and TK Owonikoko reported receiving advisory or consulting fees from various sources.

Source: Nazha B et al. Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer improves survival for synchronous or metachronous non-small cell lung cancer: A SEER–Medicare database analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(13);3206 (Jun 30). Doi: 10.3390/cancers14133206

Key clinical point: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for previously diagnosed prostate cancer may improve survival in patients subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer.

Major finding: Patients who received vs did not receive ADT for previously diagnosed prostate cancer showed improved survival after lung cancer diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio of death 0.88; P  =  .022) and a shorter latency period to the diagnosis of lung cancer (40 vs 47 months; P < .001).

Study details: This study evaluated 367,750 patients with lung cancer, of which 11,061 patients had an initial prostate cancer diagnosis and subsequent lung cancer diagnosis, 3017 had an initial lung cancer diagnosis and subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis, and the remaining patients had isolated lung cancer diagnosis.

Disclosures: This study received no external funding. B Nazha and TK Owonikoko reported receiving advisory or consulting fees from various sources.

Source: Nazha B et al. Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer improves survival for synchronous or metachronous non-small cell lung cancer: A SEER–Medicare database analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(13);3206 (Jun 30). Doi: 10.3390/cancers14133206

Key clinical point: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for previously diagnosed prostate cancer may improve survival in patients subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer.

Major finding: Patients who received vs did not receive ADT for previously diagnosed prostate cancer showed improved survival after lung cancer diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio of death 0.88; P  =  .022) and a shorter latency period to the diagnosis of lung cancer (40 vs 47 months; P < .001).

Study details: This study evaluated 367,750 patients with lung cancer, of which 11,061 patients had an initial prostate cancer diagnosis and subsequent lung cancer diagnosis, 3017 had an initial lung cancer diagnosis and subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis, and the remaining patients had isolated lung cancer diagnosis.

Disclosures: This study received no external funding. B Nazha and TK Owonikoko reported receiving advisory or consulting fees from various sources.

Source: Nazha B et al. Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer improves survival for synchronous or metachronous non-small cell lung cancer: A SEER–Medicare database analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(13);3206 (Jun 30). Doi: 10.3390/cancers14133206

Key clinical point: The use of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) increases the risk for distant organ metastasis in patients with non—small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy, with the risk being much higher in patients without vs with chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression.

Major finding: Use vs non-use of rhG-CSF more than doubled the risk for distant organ metastasis (48.37% vs 26.23%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.33; P < .01), with the risk being much higher in patients presenting without vs with myelosuppression (HR 3.34; 95% CI 1.86-6.02 vs HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.17-2.94; P_interaction < .01).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 307 patients with NSCLC who underwent surgery and postoperative systemic chemotherapy, of which 246 patients received rhG-CSF treatment during chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang Y et al. rhG-CSF is associated with an increased risk of metastasis in NSCLC patients following postoperative chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:741 (Jul 7). Doi:  10.1186/s12885-022-09850-4

Key clinical point: The use of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) increases the risk for distant organ metastasis in patients with non—small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy, with the risk being much higher in patients without vs with chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression.

Major finding: Use vs non-use of rhG-CSF more than doubled the risk for distant organ metastasis (48.37% vs 26.23%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.33; P < .01), with the risk being much higher in patients presenting without vs with myelosuppression (HR 3.34; 95% CI 1.86-6.02 vs HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.17-2.94; P_interaction < .01).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 307 patients with NSCLC who underwent surgery and postoperative systemic chemotherapy, of which 246 patients received rhG-CSF treatment during chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang Y et al. rhG-CSF is associated with an increased risk of metastasis in NSCLC patients following postoperative chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:741 (Jul 7). Doi:  10.1186/s12885-022-09850-4

Key clinical point: The use of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) increases the risk for distant organ metastasis in patients with non—small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy, with the risk being much higher in patients without vs with chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression.

Major finding: Use vs non-use of rhG-CSF more than doubled the risk for distant organ metastasis (48.37% vs 26.23%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.33; P < .01), with the risk being much higher in patients presenting without vs with myelosuppression (HR 3.34; 95% CI 1.86-6.02 vs HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.17-2.94; P_interaction < .01).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 307 patients with NSCLC who underwent surgery and postoperative systemic chemotherapy, of which 246 patients received rhG-CSF treatment during chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang Y et al. rhG-CSF is associated with an increased risk of metastasis in NSCLC patients following postoperative chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:741 (Jul 7). Doi:  10.1186/s12885-022-09850-4