User login
For MD-IQ use only
Blood Cancer Emergencies: Hematologists’ Late-Night Calls
When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.
In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.
Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
Leukocytosis
Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.
“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”
Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.
“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”
Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.
There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
Tumor lysis syndrome
While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”
It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
Differentiation syndrome
According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.
A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”
In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.
“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”
In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.
Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.
When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.
In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.
Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
Leukocytosis
Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.
“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”
Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.
“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”
Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.
There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
Tumor lysis syndrome
While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”
It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
Differentiation syndrome
According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.
A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”
In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.
“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”
In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.
Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.
When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.
In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.
Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
Leukocytosis
Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.
“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”
Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.
“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”
Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.
There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
Tumor lysis syndrome
While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”
It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
Differentiation syndrome
According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.
A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”
In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.
“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”
In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.
Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.
A Banned Chemical That Is Still Causing Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Active Surveillance for Cancer Doesn’t Increase Malpractice Risk
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Congratulations to AGA’s New Leaders
Each January, the AGA Nominating Committee meets to complete a very important task — namely, selection of new members of AGA’s Governing Board, pending approval by the membership.
Having served on this committee in the past, I can attest to how challenging a task it is to select these leaders from such a talented and committed pool of candidates, each of whom have served the organization in numerous impactful roles over the course of many years.
This year’s recently announced additions to the Governing Board, who will assume their roles this summer, include Dr. Byron Cryer (incoming Vice President), Dr. Shahnaz Sultan (Clinical Research Councillor), and Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg (Practice Councillor). I have had the pleasure of working with each of them over the years from my very early days at AGA and am confident that AGA will continue to thrive under their leadership. Please join me in congratulating Byron, Shahnaz, and Jonathan on their new roles!
In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight a phase 3 RCT from NEJM demonstrating the efficacy of seladelpar, an alternative to ursodeoxycholic acid in patients with PBC with refractory pruritus. From the CGH Practice Management section, Dr. Michelle Kim (Cleveland Clinic) and colleagues provide helpful tips on how to optimize EHR use in GI practice, including by incorporating novel tools based on AI, natural language processing, and speech recognition. In our April Member Spotlight, we are excited to feature gastroenterologist and stand-up comedienne Dr. Shida Haghighat of UCLA, who shares her passion for addressing health disparities and highlights how humor helped her cope with the demands of medical training. We hope you enjoy these, and all the stories included in our April issue.
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
Each January, the AGA Nominating Committee meets to complete a very important task — namely, selection of new members of AGA’s Governing Board, pending approval by the membership.
Having served on this committee in the past, I can attest to how challenging a task it is to select these leaders from such a talented and committed pool of candidates, each of whom have served the organization in numerous impactful roles over the course of many years.
This year’s recently announced additions to the Governing Board, who will assume their roles this summer, include Dr. Byron Cryer (incoming Vice President), Dr. Shahnaz Sultan (Clinical Research Councillor), and Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg (Practice Councillor). I have had the pleasure of working with each of them over the years from my very early days at AGA and am confident that AGA will continue to thrive under their leadership. Please join me in congratulating Byron, Shahnaz, and Jonathan on their new roles!
In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight a phase 3 RCT from NEJM demonstrating the efficacy of seladelpar, an alternative to ursodeoxycholic acid in patients with PBC with refractory pruritus. From the CGH Practice Management section, Dr. Michelle Kim (Cleveland Clinic) and colleagues provide helpful tips on how to optimize EHR use in GI practice, including by incorporating novel tools based on AI, natural language processing, and speech recognition. In our April Member Spotlight, we are excited to feature gastroenterologist and stand-up comedienne Dr. Shida Haghighat of UCLA, who shares her passion for addressing health disparities and highlights how humor helped her cope with the demands of medical training. We hope you enjoy these, and all the stories included in our April issue.
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
Each January, the AGA Nominating Committee meets to complete a very important task — namely, selection of new members of AGA’s Governing Board, pending approval by the membership.
Having served on this committee in the past, I can attest to how challenging a task it is to select these leaders from such a talented and committed pool of candidates, each of whom have served the organization in numerous impactful roles over the course of many years.
This year’s recently announced additions to the Governing Board, who will assume their roles this summer, include Dr. Byron Cryer (incoming Vice President), Dr. Shahnaz Sultan (Clinical Research Councillor), and Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg (Practice Councillor). I have had the pleasure of working with each of them over the years from my very early days at AGA and am confident that AGA will continue to thrive under their leadership. Please join me in congratulating Byron, Shahnaz, and Jonathan on their new roles!
In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight a phase 3 RCT from NEJM demonstrating the efficacy of seladelpar, an alternative to ursodeoxycholic acid in patients with PBC with refractory pruritus. From the CGH Practice Management section, Dr. Michelle Kim (Cleveland Clinic) and colleagues provide helpful tips on how to optimize EHR use in GI practice, including by incorporating novel tools based on AI, natural language processing, and speech recognition. In our April Member Spotlight, we are excited to feature gastroenterologist and stand-up comedienne Dr. Shida Haghighat of UCLA, who shares her passion for addressing health disparities and highlights how humor helped her cope with the demands of medical training. We hope you enjoy these, and all the stories included in our April issue.
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
It Takes a Village: Treating Patients for NSCLC Brain Metastases
Treatment decisions about the care of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has metastasized to the brain should always be made by a multidisciplinary team, according to a lung cancer research specialist.
The care of these patients can be quite complex, and the brain is still largely terra incognita, said Lizza Hendriks, MD, PhD, during a case-based session at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024 in Prague, Czech Republic.
The approach to patients with NSCLC metastatic to the brain and central nervous system was the subject of the session presented by Dr. Hendriks of Maastricht University Medical Center in Maastricht, the Netherlands. During this session, she outlined what is known, what is believed to be true, and what is still unknown about the treatment of patients with NSCLC that has spread to the CNS.
“Immunotherapy has moderate efficacy in the brain, but it can result in long-term disease control,” she said. She added that the best treatment strategy using these agents, whether immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy, is still unknown, even when patients have high levels of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) in their tumors.
“Also, we don’t know the best sequence of treatments, and we really need more preclinical research regarding the tumor microenvironment in the CNS,” she said.
Next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) generally have good intracranial efficacy, except for KRAS G12C inhibitors, which need to be tweaked for better effectiveness in the brain. The optimal sequence for TKIs also still needs to be determined, she continued.
Decision Points
Dr. Hendriks summarized decision points for the case of a 60-year-old female patient, a smoker, who in February of 2021 was evaluated for multiple asymptomatic brain metastases. The patient, who had good performance status, had a diagnosis of stage IVB NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology, with a tumor positive for a KRAS G12C mutation and with 50% of tumor cells expressing PD-1.
The patient was treated with whole-brain radiation therapy and single-agent immunotherapy, and, 8 months later, in October 2021, was diagnosed with extracranial progressive disease and was then started on the KRAS G12c inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras).
In May 2023 the patient was diagnosed with CNS oligoprogressive disease (that is, isolated progressing lesions) and underwent stereotactic radiotherapy. In June 2023 the patient was found to have progressive disease and was then started on platinum-based chemotherapy, with disease progression again noted in December of that year. The patient was still alive at the time of the presentation.
The first decision point in this case, Dr. Hendriks said, was whether to treat the patient at the time of diagnosis of brain metastases with upfront systemic or local therapy for the metastases.
At the time of extracranial progressive disease, should the treatment be another immumotherapy, chemotherapy, or a targeted agent?
“And the last decision is what should we do [in the event of] CNS oligoprogression?,” she said.
First Decision
For cases such as that described by Dr. Hendriks the question is whether upfront local therapy is needed if the patient is initially asymptomatic. Other considerations concerning early local therapy include the risks for late toxicities and whether there is also extracranial disease that needs to be controlled.
If systemic therapy is considered at this point, clinicians need to consider intracranial response rates to specific agents, time to onset of response, risk of pseudoprogression, and the risk of toxicity if radiotherapy is delayed until later in the disease course.
“I think all of these patients with brain metastases really deserve multidisciplinary team decisions in order to maintain or to [move] to new treatments, improve the quality of life, and improve survival,” she said.
In the case described here, the patient had small but numerous metastases that indicated the need for extracranial control, she said.
European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend that asymptomatic patients or those with oligosymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases with an oncogenic driver receive a brain-penetrating TKI. Those with no oncogenic drive but high PD-1 expression should receive upfront immunotherapy alone, while those with PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression below 50% receive chemoimmunotherapy.
The joint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline for treatment of brain metastases recommends a CNS-penetrating TKI for patients with asymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases bearing EGFR or ALK alterations. If there is no oncogenic driver, the guideline recommends the option of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with or without chemotherapy.
Both the US and European guidelines recommend initiating local treatment for patients with symptomatic metastases. The level of evidence for these recommendations is low, however.
Clinicians still need better evidence about the potential for upfront immunotherapy for these patients, more information about the NSCLC brain metastases immune environment and tumor microenvironment, data on the best treatment sequence, and new strategies for improving CNS penetration of systemic therapy, Dr. Hendriks said.
Second Decision
At the time of CNS progression, the question becomes whether patients would benefit from targeted therapy or chemotherapy.
“We quite often say that chemotherapy doesn’t work in the brain, but that’s not entirely true,” Dr. Hendriks said, noting that, depending on the regimen range, brain response rates range from 23% to as high as 50% in patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, although the median survival times are fairly low, on the order of 4 to almost 13 months.
There is also preclinical evidence that chemotherapy uptake is higher for larger brain metastases, compared with normal tissue and cerebrospinal fluid, “so the blood-brain barrier opens if you have the larger brain metastases,” she said.
KRAS-positive NSCLC is associated with a high risk for brain metastases, and these metastases share the same mutation as the primary cancer, suggesting potential efficacy of KRAS G12c inhibitors. There is preclinical evidence that adagrasib (Krazati) has CNS penetration, and there was evidence for intracranial efficacy of the drug in the KRYSTAL-1b trial, Dr. Hendriks noted.
There are fewer data for the other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved inhibitor, sotorasib, but there is evidence to suggest that its brain activity is restricted by ABCB1, a gene encoding for a transporter protein that shuttles substances out of cells.
Third Decision
For patients with CNS oligoprogression, the question is whether to adapt systemic therapy or use local therapy.
There is some evidence to support dose escalation for patients with oligoprogression of tumors with EGFR or ALK alterations, but no data to support such a strategy for those with KRAS alterations, she said.
In these situations, data support dose escalation of osimertinib (Tagrisso), especially for patients with leptomeningeal disease, and brigatinib (Alunbrig), but there is very little evidence to support dose escalation for any other drugs that might be tried, she said.
In the question-and-answer part of the session, Antonin Levy, MD, from Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, who also presented during the session, asked Dr. Hendriks what she would recommend for a patient with a long-term response to chemoimmunotherapy for whom treatment cessation may be recommended, but who still has oligopersistent brain metastases.
“The difficulty is that with immunotherapy patients can have persistent lesions without any tumor activity, and in the brain I think there is no reliable technique to evaluate this type of thing,” she said.
Dr. Hendriks added that she would continue to follow the patient, but also closely evaluate disease progression by reviewing all scans over the course of therapy to determine whether the tumor is truly stable, follow the patient with brain imaging, and then “don’t do anything.”
Dr. Hendriks disclosed grants/research support and financial relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Levy disclosed research grants from Beigene, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche.
Treatment decisions about the care of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has metastasized to the brain should always be made by a multidisciplinary team, according to a lung cancer research specialist.
The care of these patients can be quite complex, and the brain is still largely terra incognita, said Lizza Hendriks, MD, PhD, during a case-based session at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024 in Prague, Czech Republic.
The approach to patients with NSCLC metastatic to the brain and central nervous system was the subject of the session presented by Dr. Hendriks of Maastricht University Medical Center in Maastricht, the Netherlands. During this session, she outlined what is known, what is believed to be true, and what is still unknown about the treatment of patients with NSCLC that has spread to the CNS.
“Immunotherapy has moderate efficacy in the brain, but it can result in long-term disease control,” she said. She added that the best treatment strategy using these agents, whether immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy, is still unknown, even when patients have high levels of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) in their tumors.
“Also, we don’t know the best sequence of treatments, and we really need more preclinical research regarding the tumor microenvironment in the CNS,” she said.
Next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) generally have good intracranial efficacy, except for KRAS G12C inhibitors, which need to be tweaked for better effectiveness in the brain. The optimal sequence for TKIs also still needs to be determined, she continued.
Decision Points
Dr. Hendriks summarized decision points for the case of a 60-year-old female patient, a smoker, who in February of 2021 was evaluated for multiple asymptomatic brain metastases. The patient, who had good performance status, had a diagnosis of stage IVB NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology, with a tumor positive for a KRAS G12C mutation and with 50% of tumor cells expressing PD-1.
The patient was treated with whole-brain radiation therapy and single-agent immunotherapy, and, 8 months later, in October 2021, was diagnosed with extracranial progressive disease and was then started on the KRAS G12c inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras).
In May 2023 the patient was diagnosed with CNS oligoprogressive disease (that is, isolated progressing lesions) and underwent stereotactic radiotherapy. In June 2023 the patient was found to have progressive disease and was then started on platinum-based chemotherapy, with disease progression again noted in December of that year. The patient was still alive at the time of the presentation.
The first decision point in this case, Dr. Hendriks said, was whether to treat the patient at the time of diagnosis of brain metastases with upfront systemic or local therapy for the metastases.
At the time of extracranial progressive disease, should the treatment be another immumotherapy, chemotherapy, or a targeted agent?
“And the last decision is what should we do [in the event of] CNS oligoprogression?,” she said.
First Decision
For cases such as that described by Dr. Hendriks the question is whether upfront local therapy is needed if the patient is initially asymptomatic. Other considerations concerning early local therapy include the risks for late toxicities and whether there is also extracranial disease that needs to be controlled.
If systemic therapy is considered at this point, clinicians need to consider intracranial response rates to specific agents, time to onset of response, risk of pseudoprogression, and the risk of toxicity if radiotherapy is delayed until later in the disease course.
“I think all of these patients with brain metastases really deserve multidisciplinary team decisions in order to maintain or to [move] to new treatments, improve the quality of life, and improve survival,” she said.
In the case described here, the patient had small but numerous metastases that indicated the need for extracranial control, she said.
European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend that asymptomatic patients or those with oligosymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases with an oncogenic driver receive a brain-penetrating TKI. Those with no oncogenic drive but high PD-1 expression should receive upfront immunotherapy alone, while those with PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression below 50% receive chemoimmunotherapy.
The joint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline for treatment of brain metastases recommends a CNS-penetrating TKI for patients with asymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases bearing EGFR or ALK alterations. If there is no oncogenic driver, the guideline recommends the option of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with or without chemotherapy.
Both the US and European guidelines recommend initiating local treatment for patients with symptomatic metastases. The level of evidence for these recommendations is low, however.
Clinicians still need better evidence about the potential for upfront immunotherapy for these patients, more information about the NSCLC brain metastases immune environment and tumor microenvironment, data on the best treatment sequence, and new strategies for improving CNS penetration of systemic therapy, Dr. Hendriks said.
Second Decision
At the time of CNS progression, the question becomes whether patients would benefit from targeted therapy or chemotherapy.
“We quite often say that chemotherapy doesn’t work in the brain, but that’s not entirely true,” Dr. Hendriks said, noting that, depending on the regimen range, brain response rates range from 23% to as high as 50% in patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, although the median survival times are fairly low, on the order of 4 to almost 13 months.
There is also preclinical evidence that chemotherapy uptake is higher for larger brain metastases, compared with normal tissue and cerebrospinal fluid, “so the blood-brain barrier opens if you have the larger brain metastases,” she said.
KRAS-positive NSCLC is associated with a high risk for brain metastases, and these metastases share the same mutation as the primary cancer, suggesting potential efficacy of KRAS G12c inhibitors. There is preclinical evidence that adagrasib (Krazati) has CNS penetration, and there was evidence for intracranial efficacy of the drug in the KRYSTAL-1b trial, Dr. Hendriks noted.
There are fewer data for the other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved inhibitor, sotorasib, but there is evidence to suggest that its brain activity is restricted by ABCB1, a gene encoding for a transporter protein that shuttles substances out of cells.
Third Decision
For patients with CNS oligoprogression, the question is whether to adapt systemic therapy or use local therapy.
There is some evidence to support dose escalation for patients with oligoprogression of tumors with EGFR or ALK alterations, but no data to support such a strategy for those with KRAS alterations, she said.
In these situations, data support dose escalation of osimertinib (Tagrisso), especially for patients with leptomeningeal disease, and brigatinib (Alunbrig), but there is very little evidence to support dose escalation for any other drugs that might be tried, she said.
In the question-and-answer part of the session, Antonin Levy, MD, from Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, who also presented during the session, asked Dr. Hendriks what she would recommend for a patient with a long-term response to chemoimmunotherapy for whom treatment cessation may be recommended, but who still has oligopersistent brain metastases.
“The difficulty is that with immunotherapy patients can have persistent lesions without any tumor activity, and in the brain I think there is no reliable technique to evaluate this type of thing,” she said.
Dr. Hendriks added that she would continue to follow the patient, but also closely evaluate disease progression by reviewing all scans over the course of therapy to determine whether the tumor is truly stable, follow the patient with brain imaging, and then “don’t do anything.”
Dr. Hendriks disclosed grants/research support and financial relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Levy disclosed research grants from Beigene, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche.
Treatment decisions about the care of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has metastasized to the brain should always be made by a multidisciplinary team, according to a lung cancer research specialist.
The care of these patients can be quite complex, and the brain is still largely terra incognita, said Lizza Hendriks, MD, PhD, during a case-based session at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024 in Prague, Czech Republic.
The approach to patients with NSCLC metastatic to the brain and central nervous system was the subject of the session presented by Dr. Hendriks of Maastricht University Medical Center in Maastricht, the Netherlands. During this session, she outlined what is known, what is believed to be true, and what is still unknown about the treatment of patients with NSCLC that has spread to the CNS.
“Immunotherapy has moderate efficacy in the brain, but it can result in long-term disease control,” she said. She added that the best treatment strategy using these agents, whether immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy, is still unknown, even when patients have high levels of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) in their tumors.
“Also, we don’t know the best sequence of treatments, and we really need more preclinical research regarding the tumor microenvironment in the CNS,” she said.
Next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) generally have good intracranial efficacy, except for KRAS G12C inhibitors, which need to be tweaked for better effectiveness in the brain. The optimal sequence for TKIs also still needs to be determined, she continued.
Decision Points
Dr. Hendriks summarized decision points for the case of a 60-year-old female patient, a smoker, who in February of 2021 was evaluated for multiple asymptomatic brain metastases. The patient, who had good performance status, had a diagnosis of stage IVB NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology, with a tumor positive for a KRAS G12C mutation and with 50% of tumor cells expressing PD-1.
The patient was treated with whole-brain radiation therapy and single-agent immunotherapy, and, 8 months later, in October 2021, was diagnosed with extracranial progressive disease and was then started on the KRAS G12c inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras).
In May 2023 the patient was diagnosed with CNS oligoprogressive disease (that is, isolated progressing lesions) and underwent stereotactic radiotherapy. In June 2023 the patient was found to have progressive disease and was then started on platinum-based chemotherapy, with disease progression again noted in December of that year. The patient was still alive at the time of the presentation.
The first decision point in this case, Dr. Hendriks said, was whether to treat the patient at the time of diagnosis of brain metastases with upfront systemic or local therapy for the metastases.
At the time of extracranial progressive disease, should the treatment be another immumotherapy, chemotherapy, or a targeted agent?
“And the last decision is what should we do [in the event of] CNS oligoprogression?,” she said.
First Decision
For cases such as that described by Dr. Hendriks the question is whether upfront local therapy is needed if the patient is initially asymptomatic. Other considerations concerning early local therapy include the risks for late toxicities and whether there is also extracranial disease that needs to be controlled.
If systemic therapy is considered at this point, clinicians need to consider intracranial response rates to specific agents, time to onset of response, risk of pseudoprogression, and the risk of toxicity if radiotherapy is delayed until later in the disease course.
“I think all of these patients with brain metastases really deserve multidisciplinary team decisions in order to maintain or to [move] to new treatments, improve the quality of life, and improve survival,” she said.
In the case described here, the patient had small but numerous metastases that indicated the need for extracranial control, she said.
European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend that asymptomatic patients or those with oligosymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases with an oncogenic driver receive a brain-penetrating TKI. Those with no oncogenic drive but high PD-1 expression should receive upfront immunotherapy alone, while those with PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression below 50% receive chemoimmunotherapy.
The joint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline for treatment of brain metastases recommends a CNS-penetrating TKI for patients with asymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases bearing EGFR or ALK alterations. If there is no oncogenic driver, the guideline recommends the option of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with or without chemotherapy.
Both the US and European guidelines recommend initiating local treatment for patients with symptomatic metastases. The level of evidence for these recommendations is low, however.
Clinicians still need better evidence about the potential for upfront immunotherapy for these patients, more information about the NSCLC brain metastases immune environment and tumor microenvironment, data on the best treatment sequence, and new strategies for improving CNS penetration of systemic therapy, Dr. Hendriks said.
Second Decision
At the time of CNS progression, the question becomes whether patients would benefit from targeted therapy or chemotherapy.
“We quite often say that chemotherapy doesn’t work in the brain, but that’s not entirely true,” Dr. Hendriks said, noting that, depending on the regimen range, brain response rates range from 23% to as high as 50% in patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, although the median survival times are fairly low, on the order of 4 to almost 13 months.
There is also preclinical evidence that chemotherapy uptake is higher for larger brain metastases, compared with normal tissue and cerebrospinal fluid, “so the blood-brain barrier opens if you have the larger brain metastases,” she said.
KRAS-positive NSCLC is associated with a high risk for brain metastases, and these metastases share the same mutation as the primary cancer, suggesting potential efficacy of KRAS G12c inhibitors. There is preclinical evidence that adagrasib (Krazati) has CNS penetration, and there was evidence for intracranial efficacy of the drug in the KRYSTAL-1b trial, Dr. Hendriks noted.
There are fewer data for the other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved inhibitor, sotorasib, but there is evidence to suggest that its brain activity is restricted by ABCB1, a gene encoding for a transporter protein that shuttles substances out of cells.
Third Decision
For patients with CNS oligoprogression, the question is whether to adapt systemic therapy or use local therapy.
There is some evidence to support dose escalation for patients with oligoprogression of tumors with EGFR or ALK alterations, but no data to support such a strategy for those with KRAS alterations, she said.
In these situations, data support dose escalation of osimertinib (Tagrisso), especially for patients with leptomeningeal disease, and brigatinib (Alunbrig), but there is very little evidence to support dose escalation for any other drugs that might be tried, she said.
In the question-and-answer part of the session, Antonin Levy, MD, from Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, who also presented during the session, asked Dr. Hendriks what she would recommend for a patient with a long-term response to chemoimmunotherapy for whom treatment cessation may be recommended, but who still has oligopersistent brain metastases.
“The difficulty is that with immunotherapy patients can have persistent lesions without any tumor activity, and in the brain I think there is no reliable technique to evaluate this type of thing,” she said.
Dr. Hendriks added that she would continue to follow the patient, but also closely evaluate disease progression by reviewing all scans over the course of therapy to determine whether the tumor is truly stable, follow the patient with brain imaging, and then “don’t do anything.”
Dr. Hendriks disclosed grants/research support and financial relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Levy disclosed research grants from Beigene, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche.
FROM ELCC 2024
Few Childhood Cancer Survivors Get Recommended Screenings
Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.
“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.
For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.
The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.
“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”
The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ.
Changes in Adherence
The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.
Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.
Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.
In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.
During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.
Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.
Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.
“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.”
Survivorship Care Plans
Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.
“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.
Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.
However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.
“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.
“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.
For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.
The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.
“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”
The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ.
Changes in Adherence
The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.
Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.
Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.
In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.
During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.
Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.
Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.
“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.”
Survivorship Care Plans
Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.
“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.
Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.
However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.
“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.
“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.
For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.
The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.
“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”
The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ.
Changes in Adherence
The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.
Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.
Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.
In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.
During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.
Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.
Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.
“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.”
Survivorship Care Plans
Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.
“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.
Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.
However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.
“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Minimally Invasive Cytoreductive Approach Comparable to Open Surgery for Ovarian Cancer
This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.
Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.
“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.
The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
Growing Use of MIS
Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).
Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
Outcomes Compared
Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.
Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.
Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.
Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.
As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).
There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.
The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
MIS Use Debatable: CON
Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.
In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.
“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.
Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.
Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.
In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.
Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.
She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.
MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
Debate: PRO
Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”
He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.
In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.
Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.
To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.
The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.
This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.
Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.
“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.
The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
Growing Use of MIS
Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).
Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
Outcomes Compared
Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.
Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.
Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.
Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.
As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).
There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.
The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
MIS Use Debatable: CON
Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.
In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.
“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.
Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.
Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.
In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.
Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.
She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.
MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
Debate: PRO
Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”
He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.
In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.
Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.
To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.
The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.
This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.
Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.
“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.
The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
Growing Use of MIS
Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).
Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
Outcomes Compared
Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.
Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.
Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.
Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.
As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).
There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.
The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
MIS Use Debatable: CON
Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.
In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.
“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.
Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.
Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.
In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.
Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.
She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.
MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
Debate: PRO
Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”
He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.
In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.
Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.
To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.
The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.
FROM SGO 2024
Most Cancer Trial Centers Located Closer to White, Affluent Populations
This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.
“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”
Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.
“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.
To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.
These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).
The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.
“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.
In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.
“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”
A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.
This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.
“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”
Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.
“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.
To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.
These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).
The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.
“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.
In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.
“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”
A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.
This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.
“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”
Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.
“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.
To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.
These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).
The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.
“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.
In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.
“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”
A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Acne Risk With Progestin-Only Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives Evaluated
TOPLINE:
Despite the .
METHODOLOGY:
- Progestin-only LARC may increase the risk for acne, but this has not been well studied in adolescents and young adults.
- In the study, researchers evaluated the incidence of acne, acne as a reason for removal, and strategies used to manage acne after insertion of a progestin-only intrauterine device (IUD) or contraceptive implant in 1319 adolescents and young adults across four Adolescent Medicine LARC Collaborative study sites from January 2017 to June 2021.The mean age at insertion was 18.6 years.
- Overall, 24% of participants had acne at the time of LARC insertion.
- Worsening acne was defined as new patient reports of concern about acne, observations of acne, or addition of an acne medication after insertion; increased severity noted on an exam during follow-up or at the time of LARC removal; or acne reported as a side effect and/or reason for LARC removal.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 376 participants (28.5%) experienced worsening acne after LARC insertion, and 17% reported acne as a new concern, with no differences between those who received an IUD or an implant.
- Only 44 of the 376 participants (11.7%) who reported worsening acne were being treated with an oral agent at follow-up.
- Of the 542 individuals (41% of the total) who had the LARC device removed, 40 (7.4%) cited concerns about acne for removing the device, although just 5 (0.92%) said that acne was the only reason for removal. Of the 40 with concerns about acne when the device was removed, 18 (45%) had documented acne at the time of insertion.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors recommend that clinicians prescribing progestin-only LARC should counsel patients that acne may be a side effect, reassuring them that if they develop acne, “it typically is not problematic enough to warrant discontinuation,” and concluded that “concerns about the development or worsening of acne should not be cause to avoid these forms of contraception.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Individuals without documented acne were assumed to be acne-free, creating potential bias. Acne evaluation and treatment were not standardized and were not performed by dermatologists; acne severity was not recorded for many participants, possibly underestimating severity, and excluding LARC insertions without follow-up or with removal within 8 weeks may have underestimated the percentage of participants who developed new or worsening acne.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon and by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Many authors received grants for this work. The authors did not disclose any other competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Despite the .
METHODOLOGY:
- Progestin-only LARC may increase the risk for acne, but this has not been well studied in adolescents and young adults.
- In the study, researchers evaluated the incidence of acne, acne as a reason for removal, and strategies used to manage acne after insertion of a progestin-only intrauterine device (IUD) or contraceptive implant in 1319 adolescents and young adults across four Adolescent Medicine LARC Collaborative study sites from January 2017 to June 2021.The mean age at insertion was 18.6 years.
- Overall, 24% of participants had acne at the time of LARC insertion.
- Worsening acne was defined as new patient reports of concern about acne, observations of acne, or addition of an acne medication after insertion; increased severity noted on an exam during follow-up or at the time of LARC removal; or acne reported as a side effect and/or reason for LARC removal.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 376 participants (28.5%) experienced worsening acne after LARC insertion, and 17% reported acne as a new concern, with no differences between those who received an IUD or an implant.
- Only 44 of the 376 participants (11.7%) who reported worsening acne were being treated with an oral agent at follow-up.
- Of the 542 individuals (41% of the total) who had the LARC device removed, 40 (7.4%) cited concerns about acne for removing the device, although just 5 (0.92%) said that acne was the only reason for removal. Of the 40 with concerns about acne when the device was removed, 18 (45%) had documented acne at the time of insertion.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors recommend that clinicians prescribing progestin-only LARC should counsel patients that acne may be a side effect, reassuring them that if they develop acne, “it typically is not problematic enough to warrant discontinuation,” and concluded that “concerns about the development or worsening of acne should not be cause to avoid these forms of contraception.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Individuals without documented acne were assumed to be acne-free, creating potential bias. Acne evaluation and treatment were not standardized and were not performed by dermatologists; acne severity was not recorded for many participants, possibly underestimating severity, and excluding LARC insertions without follow-up or with removal within 8 weeks may have underestimated the percentage of participants who developed new or worsening acne.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon and by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Many authors received grants for this work. The authors did not disclose any other competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Despite the .
METHODOLOGY:
- Progestin-only LARC may increase the risk for acne, but this has not been well studied in adolescents and young adults.
- In the study, researchers evaluated the incidence of acne, acne as a reason for removal, and strategies used to manage acne after insertion of a progestin-only intrauterine device (IUD) or contraceptive implant in 1319 adolescents and young adults across four Adolescent Medicine LARC Collaborative study sites from January 2017 to June 2021.The mean age at insertion was 18.6 years.
- Overall, 24% of participants had acne at the time of LARC insertion.
- Worsening acne was defined as new patient reports of concern about acne, observations of acne, or addition of an acne medication after insertion; increased severity noted on an exam during follow-up or at the time of LARC removal; or acne reported as a side effect and/or reason for LARC removal.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 376 participants (28.5%) experienced worsening acne after LARC insertion, and 17% reported acne as a new concern, with no differences between those who received an IUD or an implant.
- Only 44 of the 376 participants (11.7%) who reported worsening acne were being treated with an oral agent at follow-up.
- Of the 542 individuals (41% of the total) who had the LARC device removed, 40 (7.4%) cited concerns about acne for removing the device, although just 5 (0.92%) said that acne was the only reason for removal. Of the 40 with concerns about acne when the device was removed, 18 (45%) had documented acne at the time of insertion.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors recommend that clinicians prescribing progestin-only LARC should counsel patients that acne may be a side effect, reassuring them that if they develop acne, “it typically is not problematic enough to warrant discontinuation,” and concluded that “concerns about the development or worsening of acne should not be cause to avoid these forms of contraception.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Individuals without documented acne were assumed to be acne-free, creating potential bias. Acne evaluation and treatment were not standardized and were not performed by dermatologists; acne severity was not recorded for many participants, possibly underestimating severity, and excluding LARC insertions without follow-up or with removal within 8 weeks may have underestimated the percentage of participants who developed new or worsening acne.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon and by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Many authors received grants for this work. The authors did not disclose any other competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Secondary Cancers Post CAR T Therapy: A Concern?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
- In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
- To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
- Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
- The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
- Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).
IN PRACTICE:
“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.
SOURCE:
This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
- In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
- To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
- Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
- The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
- Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).
IN PRACTICE:
“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.
SOURCE:
This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
- In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
- To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
- Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
- The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
- Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).
IN PRACTICE:
“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.
SOURCE:
This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.