User login
Oncologists Voice Ethical Concerns Over AI in Cancer Care
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Less Than 50% of Accelerated Approvals Show Clinical Benefit
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Virtual Reality Brings Relief to Hospitalized Patients With Cancer
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM CANCER
Should Opioids Be Used for Chronic Cancer Pain?
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
FROM CANCER
A Banned Chemical That Is Still Causing Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Active Surveillance for Cancer Doesn’t Increase Malpractice Risk
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Few Childhood Cancer Survivors Get Recommended Screenings
Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.
“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.
For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.
The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.
“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”
The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ.
Changes in Adherence
The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.
Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.
Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.
In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.
During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.
Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.
Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.
“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.”
Survivorship Care Plans
Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.
“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.
Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.
However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.
“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.
“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.
For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.
The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.
“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”
The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ.
Changes in Adherence
The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.
Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.
Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.
In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.
During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.
Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.
Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.
“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.”
Survivorship Care Plans
Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.
“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.
Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.
However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.
“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.
“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.
For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.
The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.
“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”
The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ.
Changes in Adherence
The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.
Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.
Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.
In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.
During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.
Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.
Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.
“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.”
Survivorship Care Plans
Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.
“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.
Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.
However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.
“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Most Cancer Trial Centers Located Closer to White, Affluent Populations
This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.
“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”
Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.
“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.
To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.
These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).
The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.
“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.
In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.
“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”
A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.
This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.
“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”
Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.
“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.
To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.
These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).
The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.
“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.
In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.
“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”
A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.
This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.
“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”
Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.
“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.
To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.
These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).
The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.
“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.
In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.
“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”
A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Secondary Cancers Post CAR T Therapy: A Concern?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
- In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
- To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
- Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
- The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
- Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).
IN PRACTICE:
“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.
SOURCE:
This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
- In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
- To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
- Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
- The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
- Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).
IN PRACTICE:
“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.
SOURCE:
This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
- In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
- To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
- Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
- The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
- Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).
IN PRACTICE:
“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.
SOURCE:
This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Drug Approvals Are the Wrong Metric for Cancer Policy
How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?
It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?
One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.
I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success.
Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.
Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.
However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.
When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.
This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.
In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.
Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.
Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.
When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.
5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.
Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.
Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.
This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.
We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.
Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.
Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?
It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?
One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.
I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success.
Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.
Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.
However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.
When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.
This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.
In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.
Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.
Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.
When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.
5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.
Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.
Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.
This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.
We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.
Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.
Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?
It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?
One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.
I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success.
Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.
Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.
However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.
When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.
This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.
In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.
Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.
Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.
When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.
5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.
Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.
Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.
This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.
We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.
Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.
Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.