User login
Use of diagnostic mammograms is inconsistent, survey finds
Existing guidelines offer little help, according to Pavani Chalasani, MD, MPH, who presented the study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “They just say [do an] annual mammogram, but they don’t say, ‘Do we need to do screening? Do we need to do breast MRIs?’”
Her personal experience also reflected a general confusion. “I asked my colleagues and got different answers from seven colleagues,” said Dr. Chalasani, who is an oncologist at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson.
She noted that diagnostic mammograms are generally similar to screening mammograms, but the radiologist is viewing the images in real time and can take additional views as needed while the patient is still present. “That is the biggest difference,” said Dr. Chalasani. No studies have been conducted to determine which method produces better results.
To get a snapshot of current practice, she and her colleagues developed a survey, which the American Society of Clinical Oncology sent to 1,000 randomly selected members between Oct. 19 and Nov. 22, 2021. 244 individuals responded; 93.5% were physicians, and half identified as female. A total of 174 respondents were medical oncologists, 31 were radiation oncologists, and 20 were surgical oncologists. The imbalance among respondents is a limitation of the study. That “may or may not be reflective of our real-time practices (among surgeons), but we do think that since a lot of times patients are seen by medical oncologists, there could be overlap,” said Dr. Chalasani.
About 50% of respondents said that they use breast MRI in the diagnosis of 25% or fewer patients. Approximately 64% of respondents said they used diagnostic mammograms versus about 31% who used imaging mammograms at first imaging. About 53% said they ordered mammograms within the first 6 months after treatment.
38% of those who ordered diagnostic mammograms for surveillance used it for 3-5 years, while 29% continued it for 5 years or more. One-quarter employed additional imaging during follow-up, most commonly breast ultrasound. About 65% said they had no stop date for screening mammograms, as long as the patient remained healthy. The choice of screening or diagnostic mammography was about 50:50, though about 55% said they use screening mammography for patients 80 years of age or older.
Dr. Chalasani pointed out that both screening and diagnostic mammograms provide similar imaging quality. Screening mammograms are completely covered by insurance, while diagnostic mammograms typically require a copay. “We’re doing this [diagnostic mammography] with no guidelines, but there is this out of pocket cost, without knowing if it’s the right thing to do,” she said.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines indicate that diagnostic mammograms can be conducted for 5 years after a ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis, but it doesn’t provide guidance for invasive cancers. Some past studies suggested that doing diagnostic mammograms for 3 years may increase diagnosis, but it isn’t clear if any such advantage would actually result in a clinical difference, according to Dr. Chalasani. “With the treatments we have, we still might cure [the cancer]. So what endpoints are we looking for? Are we changing care to add on toxicity to the patient, and stress to the patient and also for the health care system?”
She hopes that physicians will look at the results and understand that diagnostic mammograms, while they intuitively feel superior, are not supported by guidelines, and patients must incur an extra cost.
Her team also plans to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic mammograms.
Dr. Chalasani has no relevant financial disclosures.
Existing guidelines offer little help, according to Pavani Chalasani, MD, MPH, who presented the study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “They just say [do an] annual mammogram, but they don’t say, ‘Do we need to do screening? Do we need to do breast MRIs?’”
Her personal experience also reflected a general confusion. “I asked my colleagues and got different answers from seven colleagues,” said Dr. Chalasani, who is an oncologist at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson.
She noted that diagnostic mammograms are generally similar to screening mammograms, but the radiologist is viewing the images in real time and can take additional views as needed while the patient is still present. “That is the biggest difference,” said Dr. Chalasani. No studies have been conducted to determine which method produces better results.
To get a snapshot of current practice, she and her colleagues developed a survey, which the American Society of Clinical Oncology sent to 1,000 randomly selected members between Oct. 19 and Nov. 22, 2021. 244 individuals responded; 93.5% were physicians, and half identified as female. A total of 174 respondents were medical oncologists, 31 were radiation oncologists, and 20 were surgical oncologists. The imbalance among respondents is a limitation of the study. That “may or may not be reflective of our real-time practices (among surgeons), but we do think that since a lot of times patients are seen by medical oncologists, there could be overlap,” said Dr. Chalasani.
About 50% of respondents said that they use breast MRI in the diagnosis of 25% or fewer patients. Approximately 64% of respondents said they used diagnostic mammograms versus about 31% who used imaging mammograms at first imaging. About 53% said they ordered mammograms within the first 6 months after treatment.
38% of those who ordered diagnostic mammograms for surveillance used it for 3-5 years, while 29% continued it for 5 years or more. One-quarter employed additional imaging during follow-up, most commonly breast ultrasound. About 65% said they had no stop date for screening mammograms, as long as the patient remained healthy. The choice of screening or diagnostic mammography was about 50:50, though about 55% said they use screening mammography for patients 80 years of age or older.
Dr. Chalasani pointed out that both screening and diagnostic mammograms provide similar imaging quality. Screening mammograms are completely covered by insurance, while diagnostic mammograms typically require a copay. “We’re doing this [diagnostic mammography] with no guidelines, but there is this out of pocket cost, without knowing if it’s the right thing to do,” she said.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines indicate that diagnostic mammograms can be conducted for 5 years after a ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis, but it doesn’t provide guidance for invasive cancers. Some past studies suggested that doing diagnostic mammograms for 3 years may increase diagnosis, but it isn’t clear if any such advantage would actually result in a clinical difference, according to Dr. Chalasani. “With the treatments we have, we still might cure [the cancer]. So what endpoints are we looking for? Are we changing care to add on toxicity to the patient, and stress to the patient and also for the health care system?”
She hopes that physicians will look at the results and understand that diagnostic mammograms, while they intuitively feel superior, are not supported by guidelines, and patients must incur an extra cost.
Her team also plans to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic mammograms.
Dr. Chalasani has no relevant financial disclosures.
Existing guidelines offer little help, according to Pavani Chalasani, MD, MPH, who presented the study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “They just say [do an] annual mammogram, but they don’t say, ‘Do we need to do screening? Do we need to do breast MRIs?’”
Her personal experience also reflected a general confusion. “I asked my colleagues and got different answers from seven colleagues,” said Dr. Chalasani, who is an oncologist at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson.
She noted that diagnostic mammograms are generally similar to screening mammograms, but the radiologist is viewing the images in real time and can take additional views as needed while the patient is still present. “That is the biggest difference,” said Dr. Chalasani. No studies have been conducted to determine which method produces better results.
To get a snapshot of current practice, she and her colleagues developed a survey, which the American Society of Clinical Oncology sent to 1,000 randomly selected members between Oct. 19 and Nov. 22, 2021. 244 individuals responded; 93.5% were physicians, and half identified as female. A total of 174 respondents were medical oncologists, 31 were radiation oncologists, and 20 were surgical oncologists. The imbalance among respondents is a limitation of the study. That “may or may not be reflective of our real-time practices (among surgeons), but we do think that since a lot of times patients are seen by medical oncologists, there could be overlap,” said Dr. Chalasani.
About 50% of respondents said that they use breast MRI in the diagnosis of 25% or fewer patients. Approximately 64% of respondents said they used diagnostic mammograms versus about 31% who used imaging mammograms at first imaging. About 53% said they ordered mammograms within the first 6 months after treatment.
38% of those who ordered diagnostic mammograms for surveillance used it for 3-5 years, while 29% continued it for 5 years or more. One-quarter employed additional imaging during follow-up, most commonly breast ultrasound. About 65% said they had no stop date for screening mammograms, as long as the patient remained healthy. The choice of screening or diagnostic mammography was about 50:50, though about 55% said they use screening mammography for patients 80 years of age or older.
Dr. Chalasani pointed out that both screening and diagnostic mammograms provide similar imaging quality. Screening mammograms are completely covered by insurance, while diagnostic mammograms typically require a copay. “We’re doing this [diagnostic mammography] with no guidelines, but there is this out of pocket cost, without knowing if it’s the right thing to do,” she said.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines indicate that diagnostic mammograms can be conducted for 5 years after a ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis, but it doesn’t provide guidance for invasive cancers. Some past studies suggested that doing diagnostic mammograms for 3 years may increase diagnosis, but it isn’t clear if any such advantage would actually result in a clinical difference, according to Dr. Chalasani. “With the treatments we have, we still might cure [the cancer]. So what endpoints are we looking for? Are we changing care to add on toxicity to the patient, and stress to the patient and also for the health care system?”
She hopes that physicians will look at the results and understand that diagnostic mammograms, while they intuitively feel superior, are not supported by guidelines, and patients must incur an extra cost.
Her team also plans to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic mammograms.
Dr. Chalasani has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM SABCS 2022
FDA OKs elacestrant for ESR1+ advanced, metastatic breast cancer
that progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy.
The agency also approved the Guardant360 CDx assay as a companion diagnostic to identify breast cancer patients who meet the treatment requirements, according to the agency’s press release announcing the approval.
The novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader was approved based on the phase 3 EMERALD trial, which included 478 postmenopausal women and men with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, about half of whom had ESR1 mutations. Patients had progressed on one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy, including one containing a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Participants could also have had one prior line of chemotherapy in the advanced or metastatic setting.
Participants were randomized 1:1 to either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily or investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy, which included fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.
In the 228 patients (48%) with ESR1 mutations, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months with elacestrant versus 1.9 months in the fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor arm (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .0005). Investigators observed no statistically significant PFS difference between the treatment arms in patients who didn’t have the mutation.
Fair comparison?
In June, experts raised concerns about the adequacy of the “standard of care” control arm in EMERALD, particularly that single agents were used at a time when combination therapy is becoming more common.
“The expression ‘standard of care’ is applied generously, as the control arm is restricted” to single agents and no combinations, which “may have led to a substandard” comparison group, Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, said in an editorial quoted in the piece.
EMERALD investigators acknowledged that there were issues with the control group, noting that in the “United States and Europe, combination therapy with fulvestrant” – instead of single agents – “is increasingly being used as the second-line [standard of care] treatment.”
However, the goal of the study “was to compare a novel endocrine therapy vs. currently available endocrine therapies,” not combination regimens, the investigators said.
Also, “the benefit of elacestrant over fulvestrant and AIs [aromatase inhibitors] in our monotherapy trial ... suggests that incorporating elacestrant as the preferred endocrine therapy backbone in future earlier-line combination studies is a promising strategy.”
Lipid monitoring necessary
The most common adverse events with elacestrant, occurring in 10% or more of patients, are musculoskeletal pain, nausea, increased cholesterol, increased AST, increased triglycerides, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, vomiting, increased ALT, decreased sodium, increased creatinine, decreased appetite, diarrhea, headache, constipation, abdominal pain, hot flush, and dyspepsia, according to labeling.
Labeling warns that elacestrant “may cause hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Monitor lipid profile prior to starting treatment and periodically thereafter.”
The recommended elacestrant dose is the trial dose, 345 mg orally with food once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
that progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy.
The agency also approved the Guardant360 CDx assay as a companion diagnostic to identify breast cancer patients who meet the treatment requirements, according to the agency’s press release announcing the approval.
The novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader was approved based on the phase 3 EMERALD trial, which included 478 postmenopausal women and men with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, about half of whom had ESR1 mutations. Patients had progressed on one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy, including one containing a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Participants could also have had one prior line of chemotherapy in the advanced or metastatic setting.
Participants were randomized 1:1 to either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily or investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy, which included fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.
In the 228 patients (48%) with ESR1 mutations, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months with elacestrant versus 1.9 months in the fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor arm (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .0005). Investigators observed no statistically significant PFS difference between the treatment arms in patients who didn’t have the mutation.
Fair comparison?
In June, experts raised concerns about the adequacy of the “standard of care” control arm in EMERALD, particularly that single agents were used at a time when combination therapy is becoming more common.
“The expression ‘standard of care’ is applied generously, as the control arm is restricted” to single agents and no combinations, which “may have led to a substandard” comparison group, Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, said in an editorial quoted in the piece.
EMERALD investigators acknowledged that there were issues with the control group, noting that in the “United States and Europe, combination therapy with fulvestrant” – instead of single agents – “is increasingly being used as the second-line [standard of care] treatment.”
However, the goal of the study “was to compare a novel endocrine therapy vs. currently available endocrine therapies,” not combination regimens, the investigators said.
Also, “the benefit of elacestrant over fulvestrant and AIs [aromatase inhibitors] in our monotherapy trial ... suggests that incorporating elacestrant as the preferred endocrine therapy backbone in future earlier-line combination studies is a promising strategy.”
Lipid monitoring necessary
The most common adverse events with elacestrant, occurring in 10% or more of patients, are musculoskeletal pain, nausea, increased cholesterol, increased AST, increased triglycerides, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, vomiting, increased ALT, decreased sodium, increased creatinine, decreased appetite, diarrhea, headache, constipation, abdominal pain, hot flush, and dyspepsia, according to labeling.
Labeling warns that elacestrant “may cause hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Monitor lipid profile prior to starting treatment and periodically thereafter.”
The recommended elacestrant dose is the trial dose, 345 mg orally with food once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
that progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy.
The agency also approved the Guardant360 CDx assay as a companion diagnostic to identify breast cancer patients who meet the treatment requirements, according to the agency’s press release announcing the approval.
The novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader was approved based on the phase 3 EMERALD trial, which included 478 postmenopausal women and men with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, about half of whom had ESR1 mutations. Patients had progressed on one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy, including one containing a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Participants could also have had one prior line of chemotherapy in the advanced or metastatic setting.
Participants were randomized 1:1 to either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily or investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy, which included fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.
In the 228 patients (48%) with ESR1 mutations, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months with elacestrant versus 1.9 months in the fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor arm (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .0005). Investigators observed no statistically significant PFS difference between the treatment arms in patients who didn’t have the mutation.
Fair comparison?
In June, experts raised concerns about the adequacy of the “standard of care” control arm in EMERALD, particularly that single agents were used at a time when combination therapy is becoming more common.
“The expression ‘standard of care’ is applied generously, as the control arm is restricted” to single agents and no combinations, which “may have led to a substandard” comparison group, Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, said in an editorial quoted in the piece.
EMERALD investigators acknowledged that there were issues with the control group, noting that in the “United States and Europe, combination therapy with fulvestrant” – instead of single agents – “is increasingly being used as the second-line [standard of care] treatment.”
However, the goal of the study “was to compare a novel endocrine therapy vs. currently available endocrine therapies,” not combination regimens, the investigators said.
Also, “the benefit of elacestrant over fulvestrant and AIs [aromatase inhibitors] in our monotherapy trial ... suggests that incorporating elacestrant as the preferred endocrine therapy backbone in future earlier-line combination studies is a promising strategy.”
Lipid monitoring necessary
The most common adverse events with elacestrant, occurring in 10% or more of patients, are musculoskeletal pain, nausea, increased cholesterol, increased AST, increased triglycerides, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, vomiting, increased ALT, decreased sodium, increased creatinine, decreased appetite, diarrhea, headache, constipation, abdominal pain, hot flush, and dyspepsia, according to labeling.
Labeling warns that elacestrant “may cause hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Monitor lipid profile prior to starting treatment and periodically thereafter.”
The recommended elacestrant dose is the trial dose, 345 mg orally with food once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
3D-printed tumor models could advance new cancer therapies
Scientists have made big strides in the fight against cancer. A person’s risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. fell by 27% in the past 2 decades, thanks in large part to researchers who continue to uncover the complex details of how cancer works and to make advances in treatment.
Now the by enabling scientists to develop 3D tumor models that better represent samples from patients.
The impact could be “huge,” says Y. Shrike Zhang, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, who studies 3D bioprinting. “It is not the only technology that may allow modeling of tumors in vitro, but it certainly is one of the most capable.”
Why does that matter? Because the 2D cell cultures that scientists often use now may not capture all the complexities of how cancer grows, spreads, and responds to treatment. It’s one reason why so few potential new cancer drugs – 3.4%, according to one estimate – can pass all clinical trials. Results may not carry over from the culture dish to the patient.
Researchers say these 3D-printed blood vessels may treat certain dangerous health problems that affect your veins, arteries, or capillaries.
A 3D-bioprinted model, on the other hand, may be better at copying a tumor’s “microenvironment” – all the parts (cells, molecules, blood vessels) that surround a tumor.
“The tumor microenvironment plays an integral role in defining how cancer progresses,” says Madhuri Dey, a PhD candidate and researcher at Penn State University. “In vitro 3D models are an attempt at reconstituting a [cancer] microenvironment, which sheds light on how tumors respond to chemo or immunotherapeutic treatments when they are present in a native-like microenvironment.”
Ms. Dey is the lead author of a study funded by the National Science Foundation in which breast cancer tumors were 3D-bioprinted and successfully treated. Unlike some previous 3D models of cancer cells, this model did a better job of imitating that microenvironment, she explains.
So far, “3D bioprinting of cancer models has been limited to bioprinting of individual cancer cells laden in hydrogels,” she says. But she and her colleagues developed a technique called aspiration-assisted bioprinting that lets them control where blood vessels are located relative to the tumor. “This model lays the foundation for studying these nuances of cancer,” Ms. Dey says.
“This is a quite cool work,” Dr. Zhang says of the Penn State study (which he was not involved in). “Vascularization is always a key component in [a] majority of the tumor types.” A model that incorporates blood vessels provides a “critical niche” to help tumor models reach their full potential in cancer research.
A 3D printer for your body
Chances are you’ve heard of 3D printing and may even own (or know someone who owns) a 3D printer. The concept is like regular printing, but instead of spewing ink onto paper, a 3D printer releases layers of plastic or other materials, hundreds or thousands of times, to build an object from the ground up.
Three-dimensional bioprinting works much the same way, except those layers are made of living cells to create biological structures like skin, vessels, organs, or bone.
Bioprinting has been around since 1988. So far, it’s mainly used in research settings, such as in the field of regenerative medicine. Research is underway for ear reconstruction, nerve regeneration, and skin regeneration. The technology was also recently used to create eye tissue to help researchers study eye diseases.
The technology’s potential for use in cancer research has yet to be fully realized, Ms. Dey says. But that may be changing.
“The use of 3D-bioprinted tumor models is getting close to translations in cancer research,” says Dr. Zhang. “They are being increasingly adopted by the research field, and [the technology] has started to be explored by the pharma industry for use towards cancer drug development.”
Because bioprinting can be automated, it could allow researchers to create high-quality, complex tumor models at scale, Dr. Zhang says.
Such 3D models also have the potential to replace or reduce the use of animals in tumor drug testing, Ms. Dey notes. They “are expected to provide a more accurate drug response, compared [with] animal models, as animal physiology does not match humans’.”
The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a new U.S. law eliminating the requirement that drugs be tested in animals before humans, has “further paved the way for such technologies in the drug development pipeline,” Dr. Zhang says.
What if we could build a custom tumor model for each patient?
Possible uses for bioprinting go beyond the lab, Ms. Dey says. Imagine if we could customize 3D tumor models based on biopsies from individual patients. Doctors could test many treatments on these patient-specific models, letting them more accurately predict how each patient would respond to different therapies. This would help doctors decide which course of treatment is best.
In Ms. Dey’s study, the 3D model was treated with chemotherapy and with immunotherapy, and it responded to both. This highlights the potential for such 3D models to reveal the body’s immune response and be used to screen therapies, she says. “We hope is that in the future, this technique can be adapted in the hospital, which would speed up the course of cancer treatment.”
To that end, she and her colleagues are now working with real breast cancer tumors removed from patients, re-creating them in the lab in 3D to use for chemo and immunotherapy screening.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Scientists have made big strides in the fight against cancer. A person’s risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. fell by 27% in the past 2 decades, thanks in large part to researchers who continue to uncover the complex details of how cancer works and to make advances in treatment.
Now the by enabling scientists to develop 3D tumor models that better represent samples from patients.
The impact could be “huge,” says Y. Shrike Zhang, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, who studies 3D bioprinting. “It is not the only technology that may allow modeling of tumors in vitro, but it certainly is one of the most capable.”
Why does that matter? Because the 2D cell cultures that scientists often use now may not capture all the complexities of how cancer grows, spreads, and responds to treatment. It’s one reason why so few potential new cancer drugs – 3.4%, according to one estimate – can pass all clinical trials. Results may not carry over from the culture dish to the patient.
Researchers say these 3D-printed blood vessels may treat certain dangerous health problems that affect your veins, arteries, or capillaries.
A 3D-bioprinted model, on the other hand, may be better at copying a tumor’s “microenvironment” – all the parts (cells, molecules, blood vessels) that surround a tumor.
“The tumor microenvironment plays an integral role in defining how cancer progresses,” says Madhuri Dey, a PhD candidate and researcher at Penn State University. “In vitro 3D models are an attempt at reconstituting a [cancer] microenvironment, which sheds light on how tumors respond to chemo or immunotherapeutic treatments when they are present in a native-like microenvironment.”
Ms. Dey is the lead author of a study funded by the National Science Foundation in which breast cancer tumors were 3D-bioprinted and successfully treated. Unlike some previous 3D models of cancer cells, this model did a better job of imitating that microenvironment, she explains.
So far, “3D bioprinting of cancer models has been limited to bioprinting of individual cancer cells laden in hydrogels,” she says. But she and her colleagues developed a technique called aspiration-assisted bioprinting that lets them control where blood vessels are located relative to the tumor. “This model lays the foundation for studying these nuances of cancer,” Ms. Dey says.
“This is a quite cool work,” Dr. Zhang says of the Penn State study (which he was not involved in). “Vascularization is always a key component in [a] majority of the tumor types.” A model that incorporates blood vessels provides a “critical niche” to help tumor models reach their full potential in cancer research.
A 3D printer for your body
Chances are you’ve heard of 3D printing and may even own (or know someone who owns) a 3D printer. The concept is like regular printing, but instead of spewing ink onto paper, a 3D printer releases layers of plastic or other materials, hundreds or thousands of times, to build an object from the ground up.
Three-dimensional bioprinting works much the same way, except those layers are made of living cells to create biological structures like skin, vessels, organs, or bone.
Bioprinting has been around since 1988. So far, it’s mainly used in research settings, such as in the field of regenerative medicine. Research is underway for ear reconstruction, nerve regeneration, and skin regeneration. The technology was also recently used to create eye tissue to help researchers study eye diseases.
The technology’s potential for use in cancer research has yet to be fully realized, Ms. Dey says. But that may be changing.
“The use of 3D-bioprinted tumor models is getting close to translations in cancer research,” says Dr. Zhang. “They are being increasingly adopted by the research field, and [the technology] has started to be explored by the pharma industry for use towards cancer drug development.”
Because bioprinting can be automated, it could allow researchers to create high-quality, complex tumor models at scale, Dr. Zhang says.
Such 3D models also have the potential to replace or reduce the use of animals in tumor drug testing, Ms. Dey notes. They “are expected to provide a more accurate drug response, compared [with] animal models, as animal physiology does not match humans’.”
The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a new U.S. law eliminating the requirement that drugs be tested in animals before humans, has “further paved the way for such technologies in the drug development pipeline,” Dr. Zhang says.
What if we could build a custom tumor model for each patient?
Possible uses for bioprinting go beyond the lab, Ms. Dey says. Imagine if we could customize 3D tumor models based on biopsies from individual patients. Doctors could test many treatments on these patient-specific models, letting them more accurately predict how each patient would respond to different therapies. This would help doctors decide which course of treatment is best.
In Ms. Dey’s study, the 3D model was treated with chemotherapy and with immunotherapy, and it responded to both. This highlights the potential for such 3D models to reveal the body’s immune response and be used to screen therapies, she says. “We hope is that in the future, this technique can be adapted in the hospital, which would speed up the course of cancer treatment.”
To that end, she and her colleagues are now working with real breast cancer tumors removed from patients, re-creating them in the lab in 3D to use for chemo and immunotherapy screening.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Scientists have made big strides in the fight against cancer. A person’s risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. fell by 27% in the past 2 decades, thanks in large part to researchers who continue to uncover the complex details of how cancer works and to make advances in treatment.
Now the by enabling scientists to develop 3D tumor models that better represent samples from patients.
The impact could be “huge,” says Y. Shrike Zhang, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, who studies 3D bioprinting. “It is not the only technology that may allow modeling of tumors in vitro, but it certainly is one of the most capable.”
Why does that matter? Because the 2D cell cultures that scientists often use now may not capture all the complexities of how cancer grows, spreads, and responds to treatment. It’s one reason why so few potential new cancer drugs – 3.4%, according to one estimate – can pass all clinical trials. Results may not carry over from the culture dish to the patient.
Researchers say these 3D-printed blood vessels may treat certain dangerous health problems that affect your veins, arteries, or capillaries.
A 3D-bioprinted model, on the other hand, may be better at copying a tumor’s “microenvironment” – all the parts (cells, molecules, blood vessels) that surround a tumor.
“The tumor microenvironment plays an integral role in defining how cancer progresses,” says Madhuri Dey, a PhD candidate and researcher at Penn State University. “In vitro 3D models are an attempt at reconstituting a [cancer] microenvironment, which sheds light on how tumors respond to chemo or immunotherapeutic treatments when they are present in a native-like microenvironment.”
Ms. Dey is the lead author of a study funded by the National Science Foundation in which breast cancer tumors were 3D-bioprinted and successfully treated. Unlike some previous 3D models of cancer cells, this model did a better job of imitating that microenvironment, she explains.
So far, “3D bioprinting of cancer models has been limited to bioprinting of individual cancer cells laden in hydrogels,” she says. But she and her colleagues developed a technique called aspiration-assisted bioprinting that lets them control where blood vessels are located relative to the tumor. “This model lays the foundation for studying these nuances of cancer,” Ms. Dey says.
“This is a quite cool work,” Dr. Zhang says of the Penn State study (which he was not involved in). “Vascularization is always a key component in [a] majority of the tumor types.” A model that incorporates blood vessels provides a “critical niche” to help tumor models reach their full potential in cancer research.
A 3D printer for your body
Chances are you’ve heard of 3D printing and may even own (or know someone who owns) a 3D printer. The concept is like regular printing, but instead of spewing ink onto paper, a 3D printer releases layers of plastic or other materials, hundreds or thousands of times, to build an object from the ground up.
Three-dimensional bioprinting works much the same way, except those layers are made of living cells to create biological structures like skin, vessels, organs, or bone.
Bioprinting has been around since 1988. So far, it’s mainly used in research settings, such as in the field of regenerative medicine. Research is underway for ear reconstruction, nerve regeneration, and skin regeneration. The technology was also recently used to create eye tissue to help researchers study eye diseases.
The technology’s potential for use in cancer research has yet to be fully realized, Ms. Dey says. But that may be changing.
“The use of 3D-bioprinted tumor models is getting close to translations in cancer research,” says Dr. Zhang. “They are being increasingly adopted by the research field, and [the technology] has started to be explored by the pharma industry for use towards cancer drug development.”
Because bioprinting can be automated, it could allow researchers to create high-quality, complex tumor models at scale, Dr. Zhang says.
Such 3D models also have the potential to replace or reduce the use of animals in tumor drug testing, Ms. Dey notes. They “are expected to provide a more accurate drug response, compared [with] animal models, as animal physiology does not match humans’.”
The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a new U.S. law eliminating the requirement that drugs be tested in animals before humans, has “further paved the way for such technologies in the drug development pipeline,” Dr. Zhang says.
What if we could build a custom tumor model for each patient?
Possible uses for bioprinting go beyond the lab, Ms. Dey says. Imagine if we could customize 3D tumor models based on biopsies from individual patients. Doctors could test many treatments on these patient-specific models, letting them more accurately predict how each patient would respond to different therapies. This would help doctors decide which course of treatment is best.
In Ms. Dey’s study, the 3D model was treated with chemotherapy and with immunotherapy, and it responded to both. This highlights the potential for such 3D models to reveal the body’s immune response and be used to screen therapies, she says. “We hope is that in the future, this technique can be adapted in the hospital, which would speed up the course of cancer treatment.”
To that end, she and her colleagues are now working with real breast cancer tumors removed from patients, re-creating them in the lab in 3D to use for chemo and immunotherapy screening.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
People with cancer should be wary of taking dietary supplements
Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.”
Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.
But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.
And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her.
. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said.
These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.
Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
The complex drug-supplement landscape
The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced.
But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents.
Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.
Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels.
Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.
Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting.
Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label.
One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.
To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.
Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels.
Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team.
Bringing supplement use into the light
Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use.
A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health.
That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.
Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.
“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao.
The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.
Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said.
Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society.
Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful.
Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.”
Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized.
“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.
Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted.
If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why.
“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said.
Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem?
“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.
And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?
“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said Dr. Mao.
Instead, he recommends reframing the issue.
“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said.
The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.”
Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.
But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.
And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her.
. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said.
These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.
Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
The complex drug-supplement landscape
The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced.
But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents.
Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.
Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels.
Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.
Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting.
Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label.
One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.
To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.
Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels.
Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team.
Bringing supplement use into the light
Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use.
A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health.
That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.
Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.
“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao.
The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.
Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said.
Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society.
Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful.
Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.”
Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized.
“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.
Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted.
If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why.
“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said.
Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem?
“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.
And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?
“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said Dr. Mao.
Instead, he recommends reframing the issue.
“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said.
The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.”
Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.
But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.
And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her.
. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said.
These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.
Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
The complex drug-supplement landscape
The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced.
But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents.
Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.
Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels.
Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.
Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting.
Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label.
One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.
To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.
Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels.
Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team.
Bringing supplement use into the light
Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use.
A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health.
That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.
Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.
“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao.
The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.
Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said.
Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society.
Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful.
Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.”
Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized.
“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.
Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted.
If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why.
“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said.
Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem?
“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.
And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?
“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said Dr. Mao.
Instead, he recommends reframing the issue.
“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said.
The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Oncologists may be too quick to refer patients to palliative care
I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.
Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.
There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
When should a patient be referred to palliative care?
Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.
For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.
But don’t get me wrong.
Palliative care for all?
In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.
The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.
This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.
In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.
Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?
I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.
A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.
At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.
Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.
I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.
Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.
There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
When should a patient be referred to palliative care?
Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.
For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.
But don’t get me wrong.
Palliative care for all?
In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.
The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.
This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.
In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.
Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?
I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.
A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.
At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.
Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.
I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.
Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.
There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
When should a patient be referred to palliative care?
Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.
For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.
But don’t get me wrong.
Palliative care for all?
In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.
The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.
This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.
In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.
Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?
I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.
A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.
At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.
Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.
Cancer clinics begin to accommodate patients demanding new cancer detection tests
Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.
Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.
These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.
For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.
In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.
Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.
Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
Clinical trials underway
There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.
In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).
Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.
The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.
“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”
But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
Demand may burden health systems
Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.
“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”
There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.
Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.
“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.
Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.
The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
Planning and prep in Boston
In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.
“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”
Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.
“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.
“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.
Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care
With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.
Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.
There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
The first positive test result
Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.
All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”
There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”
Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”
Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.
Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.
Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.
These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.
For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.
In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.
Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.
Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
Clinical trials underway
There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.
In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).
Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.
The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.
“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”
But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
Demand may burden health systems
Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.
“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”
There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.
Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.
“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.
Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.
The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
Planning and prep in Boston
In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.
“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”
Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.
“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.
“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.
Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care
With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.
Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.
There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
The first positive test result
Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.
All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”
There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”
Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”
Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.
Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.
Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.
These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.
For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.
In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.
Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.
Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
Clinical trials underway
There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.
In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).
Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.
The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.
“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”
But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
Demand may burden health systems
Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.
“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”
There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.
Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.
“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.
Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.
The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
Planning and prep in Boston
In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.
“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”
Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.
“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.
“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.
Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care
With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.
Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.
There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
The first positive test result
Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.
All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”
There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”
Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”
Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.
Six obstacles in breast cancer detection and treatment
Breast cancer treatments have made great strides in recent years with significant reductions in overall mortality. However, the incidence of breast cancer has increased just slightly in recent years after a dip in the early 2000s.
“The good news is that mortality is decreasing, but it still remains high. We still have a long way to go to tackle this problem of breast cancer incidence as well as the number of deaths,” said Angela DeMichele, MD, co-leader of the breast cancer research program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Abramson Cancer Center. She participated in a session on obstacles in breast cancer treatment held in December at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. She joined other oncologists in outlining key challenges that need to be addressed to improve breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.
They highlighted six obstacles: The need for more prevention/early detection strategies; the underutilization of artificial intelligence; underuse of precision oncology such as targeted therapies; the need for innovation in clinical trials; a widening gap in cancer disparities; and the need to align incentives and funding for research collaboration, training, and retention.
Since 2012, the Food and Drug Administration has approved 20 new therapeutics to treat breast cancer. Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, director of the breast center at LMU University Hospital, Munich, said that the development of new therapies has in a way become a victim of its own success. Therapies and survival have improved, making it harder to compare novel therapies to the standard of care and prove a benefit. Treatment guidelines are changing so quickly that clinical trials are sometimes obsolete by the time they are published because of changes to the standard of care. That places a need on more real-world evidence that can be designed to be useful in the clinic, and AI can help here. “We need to convince regulators to act upon cleverly planned real world evidence analysis. You can randomize them, you can use registries, and you should also be able to change labels because of [new] data,” Dr. Harbeck said.
There are many risk factors that drive breast cancer, and it is very heterogeneous, said Christine Ambrosone, PhD, chair of the department of cancer prevention and control at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y. She called for identifying patients who are at risk for a poor prognosis, such as patients with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer, high-grade, and triple-negative breast cancer. Otherwise there is a risk of overtreatment of low-risk tumors, which could potentially be identified with new tools in precision oncology such as liquid biopsy tests, also known as multicancer early detection tests. These tests can detect cancers long before they become symptomatic. The first such test was launched this year and many more are in clinical trials.
Regina Barzilay, PhD, professor and expert in the use of artificial intelligence in health at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out that machine learning is used in many fields, but hardly at all in breast cancer. It could be applied to data on biomarkers and other factors collected from retrospective analyses and clinical trials. She added that machine learning is often applied to biochemistry and single cell analysis of other tumor types, but rarely in breast cancer. “It is severely underutilized,” Dr. Barzilay said. One challenge is that researchers are not necessarily familiar with the techniques of machine learning and AI. Another issue is that breast cancer data are not easy to share and may not be readily available to AI researchers. “An investment in interchangeable data is crucially important,” she said.
Artificial intelligence could assist in identifying and modeling factors that contribute to cancer risk by teasing apart complicated relationships, such as the association between pregnancy, breastfeeding, and breast cancer risk. Pregnancy reduces the risk of hormone receptor–positive disease, but increases the risk of hormone receptor–negative disease.
Another key challenge is the underuse of “omics” technologies, which measure large scale patterns in biological characteristics such as gene variation or protein expression. That has roots in the history of breast cancer being considered as a separate entity from other solid tumors such as lung or pancreatic cancer. Fabrice André, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, France, emphasized that breast cancer shouldn’t be considered an entity when it’s metastatic. Instead, tumors should be defined by molecular characteristics they share. He anticipates a personalized medicine future where academic and industry groups collaborate to create an individualized therapy for patients based on genetic factors.
Access to therapies for all patients
Novel and effective therapies can make a difference only if patients have access to them, and a key obstacle to improving breast cancer care is racism and inequities in health care. “We have to acknowledge that there is racism in medicine. I think once we acknowledge that, then we can look at things in our practices that we need to change. We can think very broadly and look at things that perhaps disadvantage one population over another,” said Lori Pierce, MD, a radiation oncologist with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Dr. Pierce also emphasized the need to recruit more underrepresented groups to participate in clinical trials. For example, of six breast cancer clinical trials – for margetuximab (Margenza), sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy), tucatinib (Tukysa), trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), alpelisib (Piqray), and talazoparib (Talzenna), only a small percentage included Black, Asian, and Hispanic women. For trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is widely recognized as a best-in-class HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate, 51% were White, 42% Asian, 6% Hispanic, and 3% Black. For sacituzumab govitecan, a blockbuster drug for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that disproportionately affects Black women, only 7% of women enrolled in clinical trials were Black. In clinical trials for margetuximab, approved to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, 80% of participants were White, 5% Black, 6% Asian, and 9% Hispanic.
There is a perception that minorities may be unwilling to participate in clinical trials, but that’s not true, according to Patty Spears, a research manager of the Patient Advocates for Research Council at the University of North Carolina. “We know that there are data that clearly show that patients will go on clinical trials at the same rate, whether they’re Black, White, Asian, or whatever. You have to be able to have them in your system and ask them to go on trial,” she said.
Another panelist told a personal anecdote to illustrate the point. Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, recalled that he spent 13 years at Washington University in St. Louis, serving one of the more segregated cities in the United States. The city hospital closed, and Washington University and the Siteman Cancer Center signed a contract to treat the underserved population that was suddenly without a source of care. “Subsequent to that, we over-accrued relative to the population of African American patients. What that taught me is it’s nothing to do with the lack of willingness of African Americans to participate in clinical trials. Quite the opposite. It’s the question of access to clinical trials, access to great care, and not creating health care systems that segregate patients into places where they’re not getting access,” he said.
Breast cancer treatments have made great strides in recent years with significant reductions in overall mortality. However, the incidence of breast cancer has increased just slightly in recent years after a dip in the early 2000s.
“The good news is that mortality is decreasing, but it still remains high. We still have a long way to go to tackle this problem of breast cancer incidence as well as the number of deaths,” said Angela DeMichele, MD, co-leader of the breast cancer research program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Abramson Cancer Center. She participated in a session on obstacles in breast cancer treatment held in December at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. She joined other oncologists in outlining key challenges that need to be addressed to improve breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.
They highlighted six obstacles: The need for more prevention/early detection strategies; the underutilization of artificial intelligence; underuse of precision oncology such as targeted therapies; the need for innovation in clinical trials; a widening gap in cancer disparities; and the need to align incentives and funding for research collaboration, training, and retention.
Since 2012, the Food and Drug Administration has approved 20 new therapeutics to treat breast cancer. Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, director of the breast center at LMU University Hospital, Munich, said that the development of new therapies has in a way become a victim of its own success. Therapies and survival have improved, making it harder to compare novel therapies to the standard of care and prove a benefit. Treatment guidelines are changing so quickly that clinical trials are sometimes obsolete by the time they are published because of changes to the standard of care. That places a need on more real-world evidence that can be designed to be useful in the clinic, and AI can help here. “We need to convince regulators to act upon cleverly planned real world evidence analysis. You can randomize them, you can use registries, and you should also be able to change labels because of [new] data,” Dr. Harbeck said.
There are many risk factors that drive breast cancer, and it is very heterogeneous, said Christine Ambrosone, PhD, chair of the department of cancer prevention and control at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y. She called for identifying patients who are at risk for a poor prognosis, such as patients with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer, high-grade, and triple-negative breast cancer. Otherwise there is a risk of overtreatment of low-risk tumors, which could potentially be identified with new tools in precision oncology such as liquid biopsy tests, also known as multicancer early detection tests. These tests can detect cancers long before they become symptomatic. The first such test was launched this year and many more are in clinical trials.
Regina Barzilay, PhD, professor and expert in the use of artificial intelligence in health at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out that machine learning is used in many fields, but hardly at all in breast cancer. It could be applied to data on biomarkers and other factors collected from retrospective analyses and clinical trials. She added that machine learning is often applied to biochemistry and single cell analysis of other tumor types, but rarely in breast cancer. “It is severely underutilized,” Dr. Barzilay said. One challenge is that researchers are not necessarily familiar with the techniques of machine learning and AI. Another issue is that breast cancer data are not easy to share and may not be readily available to AI researchers. “An investment in interchangeable data is crucially important,” she said.
Artificial intelligence could assist in identifying and modeling factors that contribute to cancer risk by teasing apart complicated relationships, such as the association between pregnancy, breastfeeding, and breast cancer risk. Pregnancy reduces the risk of hormone receptor–positive disease, but increases the risk of hormone receptor–negative disease.
Another key challenge is the underuse of “omics” technologies, which measure large scale patterns in biological characteristics such as gene variation or protein expression. That has roots in the history of breast cancer being considered as a separate entity from other solid tumors such as lung or pancreatic cancer. Fabrice André, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, France, emphasized that breast cancer shouldn’t be considered an entity when it’s metastatic. Instead, tumors should be defined by molecular characteristics they share. He anticipates a personalized medicine future where academic and industry groups collaborate to create an individualized therapy for patients based on genetic factors.
Access to therapies for all patients
Novel and effective therapies can make a difference only if patients have access to them, and a key obstacle to improving breast cancer care is racism and inequities in health care. “We have to acknowledge that there is racism in medicine. I think once we acknowledge that, then we can look at things in our practices that we need to change. We can think very broadly and look at things that perhaps disadvantage one population over another,” said Lori Pierce, MD, a radiation oncologist with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Dr. Pierce also emphasized the need to recruit more underrepresented groups to participate in clinical trials. For example, of six breast cancer clinical trials – for margetuximab (Margenza), sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy), tucatinib (Tukysa), trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), alpelisib (Piqray), and talazoparib (Talzenna), only a small percentage included Black, Asian, and Hispanic women. For trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is widely recognized as a best-in-class HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate, 51% were White, 42% Asian, 6% Hispanic, and 3% Black. For sacituzumab govitecan, a blockbuster drug for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that disproportionately affects Black women, only 7% of women enrolled in clinical trials were Black. In clinical trials for margetuximab, approved to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, 80% of participants were White, 5% Black, 6% Asian, and 9% Hispanic.
There is a perception that minorities may be unwilling to participate in clinical trials, but that’s not true, according to Patty Spears, a research manager of the Patient Advocates for Research Council at the University of North Carolina. “We know that there are data that clearly show that patients will go on clinical trials at the same rate, whether they’re Black, White, Asian, or whatever. You have to be able to have them in your system and ask them to go on trial,” she said.
Another panelist told a personal anecdote to illustrate the point. Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, recalled that he spent 13 years at Washington University in St. Louis, serving one of the more segregated cities in the United States. The city hospital closed, and Washington University and the Siteman Cancer Center signed a contract to treat the underserved population that was suddenly without a source of care. “Subsequent to that, we over-accrued relative to the population of African American patients. What that taught me is it’s nothing to do with the lack of willingness of African Americans to participate in clinical trials. Quite the opposite. It’s the question of access to clinical trials, access to great care, and not creating health care systems that segregate patients into places where they’re not getting access,” he said.
Breast cancer treatments have made great strides in recent years with significant reductions in overall mortality. However, the incidence of breast cancer has increased just slightly in recent years after a dip in the early 2000s.
“The good news is that mortality is decreasing, but it still remains high. We still have a long way to go to tackle this problem of breast cancer incidence as well as the number of deaths,” said Angela DeMichele, MD, co-leader of the breast cancer research program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Abramson Cancer Center. She participated in a session on obstacles in breast cancer treatment held in December at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. She joined other oncologists in outlining key challenges that need to be addressed to improve breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.
They highlighted six obstacles: The need for more prevention/early detection strategies; the underutilization of artificial intelligence; underuse of precision oncology such as targeted therapies; the need for innovation in clinical trials; a widening gap in cancer disparities; and the need to align incentives and funding for research collaboration, training, and retention.
Since 2012, the Food and Drug Administration has approved 20 new therapeutics to treat breast cancer. Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, director of the breast center at LMU University Hospital, Munich, said that the development of new therapies has in a way become a victim of its own success. Therapies and survival have improved, making it harder to compare novel therapies to the standard of care and prove a benefit. Treatment guidelines are changing so quickly that clinical trials are sometimes obsolete by the time they are published because of changes to the standard of care. That places a need on more real-world evidence that can be designed to be useful in the clinic, and AI can help here. “We need to convince regulators to act upon cleverly planned real world evidence analysis. You can randomize them, you can use registries, and you should also be able to change labels because of [new] data,” Dr. Harbeck said.
There are many risk factors that drive breast cancer, and it is very heterogeneous, said Christine Ambrosone, PhD, chair of the department of cancer prevention and control at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y. She called for identifying patients who are at risk for a poor prognosis, such as patients with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer, high-grade, and triple-negative breast cancer. Otherwise there is a risk of overtreatment of low-risk tumors, which could potentially be identified with new tools in precision oncology such as liquid biopsy tests, also known as multicancer early detection tests. These tests can detect cancers long before they become symptomatic. The first such test was launched this year and many more are in clinical trials.
Regina Barzilay, PhD, professor and expert in the use of artificial intelligence in health at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out that machine learning is used in many fields, but hardly at all in breast cancer. It could be applied to data on biomarkers and other factors collected from retrospective analyses and clinical trials. She added that machine learning is often applied to biochemistry and single cell analysis of other tumor types, but rarely in breast cancer. “It is severely underutilized,” Dr. Barzilay said. One challenge is that researchers are not necessarily familiar with the techniques of machine learning and AI. Another issue is that breast cancer data are not easy to share and may not be readily available to AI researchers. “An investment in interchangeable data is crucially important,” she said.
Artificial intelligence could assist in identifying and modeling factors that contribute to cancer risk by teasing apart complicated relationships, such as the association between pregnancy, breastfeeding, and breast cancer risk. Pregnancy reduces the risk of hormone receptor–positive disease, but increases the risk of hormone receptor–negative disease.
Another key challenge is the underuse of “omics” technologies, which measure large scale patterns in biological characteristics such as gene variation or protein expression. That has roots in the history of breast cancer being considered as a separate entity from other solid tumors such as lung or pancreatic cancer. Fabrice André, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, France, emphasized that breast cancer shouldn’t be considered an entity when it’s metastatic. Instead, tumors should be defined by molecular characteristics they share. He anticipates a personalized medicine future where academic and industry groups collaborate to create an individualized therapy for patients based on genetic factors.
Access to therapies for all patients
Novel and effective therapies can make a difference only if patients have access to them, and a key obstacle to improving breast cancer care is racism and inequities in health care. “We have to acknowledge that there is racism in medicine. I think once we acknowledge that, then we can look at things in our practices that we need to change. We can think very broadly and look at things that perhaps disadvantage one population over another,” said Lori Pierce, MD, a radiation oncologist with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Dr. Pierce also emphasized the need to recruit more underrepresented groups to participate in clinical trials. For example, of six breast cancer clinical trials – for margetuximab (Margenza), sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy), tucatinib (Tukysa), trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), alpelisib (Piqray), and talazoparib (Talzenna), only a small percentage included Black, Asian, and Hispanic women. For trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is widely recognized as a best-in-class HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate, 51% were White, 42% Asian, 6% Hispanic, and 3% Black. For sacituzumab govitecan, a blockbuster drug for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that disproportionately affects Black women, only 7% of women enrolled in clinical trials were Black. In clinical trials for margetuximab, approved to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, 80% of participants were White, 5% Black, 6% Asian, and 9% Hispanic.
There is a perception that minorities may be unwilling to participate in clinical trials, but that’s not true, according to Patty Spears, a research manager of the Patient Advocates for Research Council at the University of North Carolina. “We know that there are data that clearly show that patients will go on clinical trials at the same rate, whether they’re Black, White, Asian, or whatever. You have to be able to have them in your system and ask them to go on trial,” she said.
Another panelist told a personal anecdote to illustrate the point. Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, recalled that he spent 13 years at Washington University in St. Louis, serving one of the more segregated cities in the United States. The city hospital closed, and Washington University and the Siteman Cancer Center signed a contract to treat the underserved population that was suddenly without a source of care. “Subsequent to that, we over-accrued relative to the population of African American patients. What that taught me is it’s nothing to do with the lack of willingness of African Americans to participate in clinical trials. Quite the opposite. It’s the question of access to clinical trials, access to great care, and not creating health care systems that segregate patients into places where they’re not getting access,” he said.
FROM SABCS 2022
Most women with breast cancer elude serious COVID-19 vaccine side effects
Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively
Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”
The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.
“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.
The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.
Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.
“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.
Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.
Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively
Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”
The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.
“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.
The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.
Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.
“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.
Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.
Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively
Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”
The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.
“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.
The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.
Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.
“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.
Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM SABCS 2022
Breast cancer diagnoses worse among Hispanics during COVID-19 pandemic
In a series of studies recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women with breast cancer, researchers report that ethnicity played a role in later diagnoses, Hispanics presented with more advanced and aggressive disease, and a focus on a single hospital in San Antonio finds a statistical difference between stage at diagnosis prior to the pandemic, compared with the postvaccine era.
Patients treated at the Mays Cancer Center, a cancer hospital of University of Texas Health and MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Antonio, during the pandemic were found to more likely present with advanced disease between March and December 2020, according to Marcela Mazo, MD, an oncologist with UT Health, San Antonio, and an author of each of three studies.
“We learned that Hispanic patients were presenting with more aggressive histologies such as HER2-positive and triple-negative disease. We also confirmed what we were suspecting, which is that Latina women had less access to medical coverage. We had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients presenting to us without medical coverage, which of course made the treatment extremely challenging,” said Dr. Mazo.
Hispanics are one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the United States, and understanding the factors that affect their healthcare is critical to formulating health policies.
And I’m sad to say that, even after everything opened up and people could get vaccinated, I still saw some patients who, for whatever reason, did not get a mammogram – which led to [more] clinical presentations of advanced cancer by the time they were seen by us,” she said.
Dr. Mazo said that underscreened women could also be considered victims of the pandemic. “I tell my patients to get their vaccines so they’re protected and they can feel more comfortable going to the doctor where there is a higher proportion of people who could potentially have COVID.”
Other studies have shown that patients in general, regardless of race or ethnicity, have been diagnosed with later-stage breast cancer diagnoses during the pandemic.
The three studies are based on an analysis of 696 patients treated at Mays Cancer Center. Of these, 264 were diagnosed before the pandemic (cohort A), 171 during the lockdown (Apr. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, cohort B) and 261 after vaccines were introduced (Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, cohort C). Overall, there was a slight trend toward a higher incidence of HER2-positive disease during the lockdown period (odds ratio, 1.45) and in the postvaccine period (OR, 1.40), though neither relationship was statistically significant (P = .2). No relationships were seen between time period and incidence of triple-negative breast cancer.
The researchers found that Hispanic patients were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease in the pandemic years, compared with pre-COVID times. For example, the likelihood of being diagnosed with carcinoma in situ (Tis) versus T1 disease was lower in the postvaccine era than the pre-COVID era (OR, 0.38; P < .001), although there was no significant difference in Tis versus T1 during the lockdown period, compared with the pre-COVID era. The researchers concluded the difference was likely caused by the latency period of breast cancer.
The postvaccine era saw a 15% increase in patients diagnosed with HER2-positive disease, compared with the pre-COVID era. Patients diagnosed in the COVID era (cohorts B and C) were more likely to require neoadjuvant therapy than patients diagnosed in the pre-COVID era (OR, 1.78; P = .009).
They also found significant disparities in health insurance coverage. 91% of non-Hispanic patients were covered by insurance, compared with 70% of Hispanic patients.
Overall, the findings hint at the depth of health care inequities faced by Hispanic women in the region, and should be a call for action, Dr. Mazo said. “I wish that we as physicians would take the lead to do the best we can to support legislative changes that could help all of our patients get treated – independent of where they come from.”
Dr. Mazo has no relevant financial disclosures.
In a series of studies recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women with breast cancer, researchers report that ethnicity played a role in later diagnoses, Hispanics presented with more advanced and aggressive disease, and a focus on a single hospital in San Antonio finds a statistical difference between stage at diagnosis prior to the pandemic, compared with the postvaccine era.
Patients treated at the Mays Cancer Center, a cancer hospital of University of Texas Health and MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Antonio, during the pandemic were found to more likely present with advanced disease between March and December 2020, according to Marcela Mazo, MD, an oncologist with UT Health, San Antonio, and an author of each of three studies.
“We learned that Hispanic patients were presenting with more aggressive histologies such as HER2-positive and triple-negative disease. We also confirmed what we were suspecting, which is that Latina women had less access to medical coverage. We had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients presenting to us without medical coverage, which of course made the treatment extremely challenging,” said Dr. Mazo.
Hispanics are one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the United States, and understanding the factors that affect their healthcare is critical to formulating health policies.
And I’m sad to say that, even after everything opened up and people could get vaccinated, I still saw some patients who, for whatever reason, did not get a mammogram – which led to [more] clinical presentations of advanced cancer by the time they were seen by us,” she said.
Dr. Mazo said that underscreened women could also be considered victims of the pandemic. “I tell my patients to get their vaccines so they’re protected and they can feel more comfortable going to the doctor where there is a higher proportion of people who could potentially have COVID.”
Other studies have shown that patients in general, regardless of race or ethnicity, have been diagnosed with later-stage breast cancer diagnoses during the pandemic.
The three studies are based on an analysis of 696 patients treated at Mays Cancer Center. Of these, 264 were diagnosed before the pandemic (cohort A), 171 during the lockdown (Apr. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, cohort B) and 261 after vaccines were introduced (Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, cohort C). Overall, there was a slight trend toward a higher incidence of HER2-positive disease during the lockdown period (odds ratio, 1.45) and in the postvaccine period (OR, 1.40), though neither relationship was statistically significant (P = .2). No relationships were seen between time period and incidence of triple-negative breast cancer.
The researchers found that Hispanic patients were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease in the pandemic years, compared with pre-COVID times. For example, the likelihood of being diagnosed with carcinoma in situ (Tis) versus T1 disease was lower in the postvaccine era than the pre-COVID era (OR, 0.38; P < .001), although there was no significant difference in Tis versus T1 during the lockdown period, compared with the pre-COVID era. The researchers concluded the difference was likely caused by the latency period of breast cancer.
The postvaccine era saw a 15% increase in patients diagnosed with HER2-positive disease, compared with the pre-COVID era. Patients diagnosed in the COVID era (cohorts B and C) were more likely to require neoadjuvant therapy than patients diagnosed in the pre-COVID era (OR, 1.78; P = .009).
They also found significant disparities in health insurance coverage. 91% of non-Hispanic patients were covered by insurance, compared with 70% of Hispanic patients.
Overall, the findings hint at the depth of health care inequities faced by Hispanic women in the region, and should be a call for action, Dr. Mazo said. “I wish that we as physicians would take the lead to do the best we can to support legislative changes that could help all of our patients get treated – independent of where they come from.”
Dr. Mazo has no relevant financial disclosures.
In a series of studies recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women with breast cancer, researchers report that ethnicity played a role in later diagnoses, Hispanics presented with more advanced and aggressive disease, and a focus on a single hospital in San Antonio finds a statistical difference between stage at diagnosis prior to the pandemic, compared with the postvaccine era.
Patients treated at the Mays Cancer Center, a cancer hospital of University of Texas Health and MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Antonio, during the pandemic were found to more likely present with advanced disease between March and December 2020, according to Marcela Mazo, MD, an oncologist with UT Health, San Antonio, and an author of each of three studies.
“We learned that Hispanic patients were presenting with more aggressive histologies such as HER2-positive and triple-negative disease. We also confirmed what we were suspecting, which is that Latina women had less access to medical coverage. We had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients presenting to us without medical coverage, which of course made the treatment extremely challenging,” said Dr. Mazo.
Hispanics are one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the United States, and understanding the factors that affect their healthcare is critical to formulating health policies.
And I’m sad to say that, even after everything opened up and people could get vaccinated, I still saw some patients who, for whatever reason, did not get a mammogram – which led to [more] clinical presentations of advanced cancer by the time they were seen by us,” she said.
Dr. Mazo said that underscreened women could also be considered victims of the pandemic. “I tell my patients to get their vaccines so they’re protected and they can feel more comfortable going to the doctor where there is a higher proportion of people who could potentially have COVID.”
Other studies have shown that patients in general, regardless of race or ethnicity, have been diagnosed with later-stage breast cancer diagnoses during the pandemic.
The three studies are based on an analysis of 696 patients treated at Mays Cancer Center. Of these, 264 were diagnosed before the pandemic (cohort A), 171 during the lockdown (Apr. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, cohort B) and 261 after vaccines were introduced (Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, cohort C). Overall, there was a slight trend toward a higher incidence of HER2-positive disease during the lockdown period (odds ratio, 1.45) and in the postvaccine period (OR, 1.40), though neither relationship was statistically significant (P = .2). No relationships were seen between time period and incidence of triple-negative breast cancer.
The researchers found that Hispanic patients were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease in the pandemic years, compared with pre-COVID times. For example, the likelihood of being diagnosed with carcinoma in situ (Tis) versus T1 disease was lower in the postvaccine era than the pre-COVID era (OR, 0.38; P < .001), although there was no significant difference in Tis versus T1 during the lockdown period, compared with the pre-COVID era. The researchers concluded the difference was likely caused by the latency period of breast cancer.
The postvaccine era saw a 15% increase in patients diagnosed with HER2-positive disease, compared with the pre-COVID era. Patients diagnosed in the COVID era (cohorts B and C) were more likely to require neoadjuvant therapy than patients diagnosed in the pre-COVID era (OR, 1.78; P = .009).
They also found significant disparities in health insurance coverage. 91% of non-Hispanic patients were covered by insurance, compared with 70% of Hispanic patients.
Overall, the findings hint at the depth of health care inequities faced by Hispanic women in the region, and should be a call for action, Dr. Mazo said. “I wish that we as physicians would take the lead to do the best we can to support legislative changes that could help all of our patients get treated – independent of where they come from.”
Dr. Mazo has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM SABCS 2022
Structural racism tied to later-stage breast cancer diagnoses
A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.
“ through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.
The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.
Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.
The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.
Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).
Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).
The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.
“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.
Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.
A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.
“ through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.
The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.
Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.
The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.
Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).
Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).
The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.
“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.
Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.
A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.
“ through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.
The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.
Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.
The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.
Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).
Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).
The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.
“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.
Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM SABCS 2022