Multiple Myeloma

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research indicates that hospitalized patients with advanced cancer have a high burden of physical and psychological symptoms, and this burden is linked to longer hospital stays and a greater risk for unplanned hospital readmissions and death.

Researchers said these findings highlight the need to develop and test interventions to lessen patients’ symptoms.

Ryan Nipp, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his colleagues reported the findings in Cancer.

The researchers noted that patients with advanced cancer often experience frequent and prolonged hospitalizations for reasons that have not been fully explored.

To investigate, the team collected information from 1036 patients with advanced cancer as they were being admitted for an unplanned hospitalization.

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) was used to assess patients’ physical symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire 4 (PHQ-4) was used to assess their psychological symptoms.

The researchers examined the relationship between patients’ symptom burden and the duration of their hospital stay, risk of readmission, and death.

Many patients reported moderate or severe fatigue (86.7%), poor well-being (74.2%), drowsiness (71.7%), pain (67.7%), and lack of appetite (67.3%). Nearly 30% of patients had clinically significant symptoms of depression (28.8%) and anxiety (28.0%).

The patients’ mean hospital stay was 6.3 days, the readmission rate within 90 days of discharge was 43.1%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 41.6%.

Physical symptoms (P<0.001), total ESAS score (P<0.001), total PHQ-4 score (P=0.040), and depression symptoms (P=0.017) were significantly associated with longer hospital stays, but anxiety symptoms were not (P=0.190).

Physical symptoms (P<0.001), total ESAS score (P<0.001), total PHQ-4 score (P=0.072), and anxiety symptoms (P=0.045) were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of readmission within 90 days, but depression symptoms were not (P=0.219).

Physical symptoms (P<0.001), total ESAS score (P<0.001), total PHQ-4 score (P<0.001), depression symptoms (P<0.001), and anxiety symptoms (P=0.012) were all significantly associated with a higher likelihood of death or readmission within 90 days.

“We demonstrated that many hospitalized patients with advanced cancer experience an immense physical and psychological symptom burden,” Dr Nipp said.

“Interventions to identify and treat symptomatic patients hold great potential for improving patients’ experience with their illness, enhancing their quality of life, and reducing their healthcare utilization.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research indicates that hospitalized patients with advanced cancer have a high burden of physical and psychological symptoms, and this burden is linked to longer hospital stays and a greater risk for unplanned hospital readmissions and death.

Researchers said these findings highlight the need to develop and test interventions to lessen patients’ symptoms.

Ryan Nipp, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his colleagues reported the findings in Cancer.

The researchers noted that patients with advanced cancer often experience frequent and prolonged hospitalizations for reasons that have not been fully explored.

To investigate, the team collected information from 1036 patients with advanced cancer as they were being admitted for an unplanned hospitalization.

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) was used to assess patients’ physical symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire 4 (PHQ-4) was used to assess their psychological symptoms.

The researchers examined the relationship between patients’ symptom burden and the duration of their hospital stay, risk of readmission, and death.

Many patients reported moderate or severe fatigue (86.7%), poor well-being (74.2%), drowsiness (71.7%), pain (67.7%), and lack of appetite (67.3%). Nearly 30% of patients had clinically significant symptoms of depression (28.8%) and anxiety (28.0%).

The patients’ mean hospital stay was 6.3 days, the readmission rate within 90 days of discharge was 43.1%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 41.6%.

Physical symptoms (P<0.001), total ESAS score (P<0.001), total PHQ-4 score (P=0.040), and depression symptoms (P=0.017) were significantly associated with longer hospital stays, but anxiety symptoms were not (P=0.190).

Physical symptoms (P<0.001), total ESAS score (P<0.001), total PHQ-4 score (P=0.072), and anxiety symptoms (P=0.045) were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of readmission within 90 days, but depression symptoms were not (P=0.219).

Physical symptoms (P<0.001), total ESAS score (P<0.001), total PHQ-4 score (P<0.001), depression symptoms (P<0.001), and anxiety symptoms (P=0.012) were all significantly associated with a higher likelihood of death or readmission within 90 days.

“We demonstrated that many hospitalized patients with advanced cancer experience an immense physical and psychological symptom burden,” Dr Nipp said.

“Interventions to identify and treat symptomatic patients hold great potential for improving patients’ experience with their illness, enhancing their quality of life, and reducing their healthcare utilization.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research indicates that hospitalized patients with advanced cancer have a high burden of physical and psychological symptoms, and this burden is linked to longer hospital stays and a greater risk for unplanned hospital readmissions and death.

Researchers said these findings highlight the need to develop and test interventions to lessen patients’ symptoms.

Ryan Nipp, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his colleagues reported the findings in Cancer.

The researchers noted that patients with advanced cancer often experience frequent and prolonged hospitalizations for reasons that have not been fully explored.

To investigate, the team collected information from 1036 patients with advanced cancer as they were being admitted for an unplanned hospitalization.

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) was used to assess patients’ physical symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire 4 (PHQ-4) was used to assess their psychological symptoms.

The researchers examined the relationship between patients’ symptom burden and the duration of their hospital stay, risk of readmission, and death.

Many patients reported moderate or severe fatigue (86.7%), poor well-being (74.2%), drowsiness (71.7%), pain (67.7%), and lack of appetite (67.3%). Nearly 30% of patients had clinically significant symptoms of depression (28.8%) and anxiety (28.0%).

The patients’ mean hospital stay was 6.3 days, the readmission rate within 90 days of discharge was 43.1%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 41.6%.

Physical symptoms (P<0.001), total ESAS score (P<0.001), total PHQ-4 score (P=0.040), and depression symptoms (P=0.017) were significantly associated with longer hospital stays, but anxiety symptoms were not (P=0.190).

Physical symptoms (P<0.001), total ESAS score (P<0.001), total PHQ-4 score (P=0.072), and anxiety symptoms (P=0.045) were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of readmission within 90 days, but depression symptoms were not (P=0.219).

Physical symptoms (P<0.001), total ESAS score (P<0.001), total PHQ-4 score (P<0.001), depression symptoms (P<0.001), and anxiety symptoms (P=0.012) were all significantly associated with a higher likelihood of death or readmission within 90 days.

“We demonstrated that many hospitalized patients with advanced cancer experience an immense physical and psychological symptom burden,” Dr Nipp said.

“Interventions to identify and treat symptomatic patients hold great potential for improving patients’ experience with their illness, enhancing their quality of life, and reducing their healthcare utilization.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study suggests cryotherapy can reduce symptoms of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).

Researchers found that having chemotherapy patients wear frozen gloves and socks for 90-minute periods significantly reduced the incidence of CIPN symptoms.

Hiroshi Ishiguro, MD, PhD, of International University of Health and Welfare Hospital in Tochigi, Japan, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The researchers prospectively evaluated the efficacy of cryotherapy for preventing CIPN. Breast cancer patients treated weekly with paclitaxel (80 mg/m² for 1 hour) wore frozen gloves and socks on one side of their bodies for 90 minutes, including the entire duration of drug infusion.

The researchers then compared symptoms on the treated sides with those on the untreated sides.

The primary endpoint was CIPN incidence assessed by changes in tactile sensitivity from a pretreatment baseline. The researchers also assessed subjective symptoms, as reported in the Patient Neuropathy Questionnaire, and patients' manual dexterity.

Among the 40 patients studied, 4 did not reach the cumulative dose due to the occurrence of pneumonia, severe fatigue, liver dysfunction, and macular edema. Of the 36 remaining patients, none dropped out due to cold intolerance.

The incidence of objective and subjective signs of CIPN was clinically and statistically significantly lower on the intervention side than on the control side for most measurements, which includes (among other measures):

• Hand tactile sensitivity—27.8% and 80.6%, respectively (odds ratio[OR]= 20.00, P<0.001)
• Foot tactile sensitivity—25.0% and 63.9%, respectively (OR=infinite, P<0.001)
• Hand warm sense—8.8% and 32.4%, respectively (OR=9.00, P=0.02)
• Foot warm sense—33.4% and 57.6%, respectively (OR=5.00, P=0.04)
• Hand cold sense—2.8% and 13.9%, respectively (OR=infinite, P=0.13)
• Foot cold sense—12.6% and 18.8%, respectively (OR=2.00, P=0.69)
• Severe CIPN in the hand according to the Patient Neuropathy Questionnaire—2.8% and 41.7%, respectively (OR=infinite, P<0.001)
• Severe CIPN in the foot according to the Patient Neuropathy Questionnaire—2.8% and 36.1%, respectively (OR=infinite, P<0.001).
  

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study suggests cryotherapy can reduce symptoms of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).

Researchers found that having chemotherapy patients wear frozen gloves and socks for 90-minute periods significantly reduced the incidence of CIPN symptoms.

Hiroshi Ishiguro, MD, PhD, of International University of Health and Welfare Hospital in Tochigi, Japan, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The researchers prospectively evaluated the efficacy of cryotherapy for preventing CIPN. Breast cancer patients treated weekly with paclitaxel (80 mg/m² for 1 hour) wore frozen gloves and socks on one side of their bodies for 90 minutes, including the entire duration of drug infusion.

The researchers then compared symptoms on the treated sides with those on the untreated sides.

The primary endpoint was CIPN incidence assessed by changes in tactile sensitivity from a pretreatment baseline. The researchers also assessed subjective symptoms, as reported in the Patient Neuropathy Questionnaire, and patients' manual dexterity.

Among the 40 patients studied, 4 did not reach the cumulative dose due to the occurrence of pneumonia, severe fatigue, liver dysfunction, and macular edema. Of the 36 remaining patients, none dropped out due to cold intolerance.

The incidence of objective and subjective signs of CIPN was clinically and statistically significantly lower on the intervention side than on the control side for most measurements, which includes (among other measures):

• Hand tactile sensitivity—27.8% and 80.6%, respectively (odds ratio[OR]= 20.00, P<0.001)
• Foot tactile sensitivity—25.0% and 63.9%, respectively (OR=infinite, P<0.001)
• Hand warm sense—8.8% and 32.4%, respectively (OR=9.00, P=0.02)
• Foot warm sense—33.4% and 57.6%, respectively (OR=5.00, P=0.04)
• Hand cold sense—2.8% and 13.9%, respectively (OR=infinite, P=0.13)
• Foot cold sense—12.6% and 18.8%, respectively (OR=2.00, P=0.69)
• Severe CIPN in the hand according to the Patient Neuropathy Questionnaire—2.8% and 41.7%, respectively (OR=infinite, P<0.001)
• Severe CIPN in the foot according to the Patient Neuropathy Questionnaire—2.8% and 36.1%, respectively (OR=infinite, P<0.001).
  

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study suggests cryotherapy can reduce symptoms of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).

Researchers found that having chemotherapy patients wear frozen gloves and socks for 90-minute periods significantly reduced the incidence of CIPN symptoms.

Hiroshi Ishiguro, MD, PhD, of International University of Health and Welfare Hospital in Tochigi, Japan, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The researchers prospectively evaluated the efficacy of cryotherapy for preventing CIPN. Breast cancer patients treated weekly with paclitaxel (80 mg/m² for 1 hour) wore frozen gloves and socks on one side of their bodies for 90 minutes, including the entire duration of drug infusion.

The researchers then compared symptoms on the treated sides with those on the untreated sides.

The primary endpoint was CIPN incidence assessed by changes in tactile sensitivity from a pretreatment baseline. The researchers also assessed subjective symptoms, as reported in the Patient Neuropathy Questionnaire, and patients' manual dexterity.

Among the 40 patients studied, 4 did not reach the cumulative dose due to the occurrence of pneumonia, severe fatigue, liver dysfunction, and macular edema. Of the 36 remaining patients, none dropped out due to cold intolerance.

The incidence of objective and subjective signs of CIPN was clinically and statistically significantly lower on the intervention side than on the control side for most measurements, which includes (among other measures):

• Hand tactile sensitivity—27.8% and 80.6%, respectively (odds ratio[OR]= 20.00, P<0.001)
• Foot tactile sensitivity—25.0% and 63.9%, respectively (OR=infinite, P<0.001)
• Hand warm sense—8.8% and 32.4%, respectively (OR=9.00, P=0.02)
• Foot warm sense—33.4% and 57.6%, respectively (OR=5.00, P=0.04)
• Hand cold sense—2.8% and 13.9%, respectively (OR=infinite, P=0.13)
• Foot cold sense—12.6% and 18.8%, respectively (OR=2.00, P=0.69)
• Severe CIPN in the hand according to the Patient Neuropathy Questionnaire—2.8% and 41.7%, respectively (OR=infinite, P<0.001)
• Severe CIPN in the foot according to the Patient Neuropathy Questionnaire—2.8% and 36.1%, respectively (OR=infinite, P<0.001).
  

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection have higher cancer rates than countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection, according to a study published in Evolutionary Applications.

Researchers said this is because modern medicine is enabling people to survive cancers, and their genetic backgrounds are passing from one generation to the next.

The team said the rate of some cancers has doubled and even quadrupled over the past 100 to 150 years, and human evolution has moved away from “survival of the fittest.”

“Modern medicine has enabled the human species to live much longer than would otherwise be expected in the natural world,” said study author Maciej Henneberg, PhD, DSc, of the University of Adelaide in South Australia.

“Besides the obvious benefits that modern medicine gives, it also brings with it an unexpected side-effect—allowing genetic material to be passed from one generation to the next that predisposes people to have poor health, such as type 1 diabetes or cancer.”

“Because of the quality of our healthcare in western society, we have almost removed natural selection as the ‘janitor of the gene pool.’ Unfortunately, the accumulation of genetic mutations over time and across multiple generations is like a delayed death sentence.”

Country comparison

The researchers studied global cancer data from the World Health Organization as well as other health and socioeconomic data from the United Nations and the World Bank of 173 countries. The team compared the top 10 countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection to the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection.

“We looked at countries that offered the greatest opportunity to survive cancer compared with those that didn’t,” said study author Wenpeng You, a PhD student at the University of Adelaide. “This does not only take into account factors such as socioeconomic status, urbanization, and quality of medical services but also low mortality and fertility rates, which are the 2 distinguishing features in the ‘better’ world.”

“Countries with low mortality rates may allow more people with cancer genetic background to reproduce and pass cancer genes/mutations to the next generation. Meanwhile, low fertility rates in these countries may not be able to have diverse biological variations to provide the opportunity for selecting a naturally fit population—for example, people without or with less cancer genetic background. Low mortality rate and low fertility rate in the ‘better’ world may have formed a self-reinforcing cycle which has accumulated cancer genetic background at a greater rate than previously thought.”

Based on the researchers’ analysis, the 20 countries are:

Cancer incidence

The researchers found the rates of most cancers were higher in the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection. The incidence of all cancers was 2.326 times higher in the low-opportunity countries than the high-opportunity ones.

The increased incidences of hematologic malignancies were as follows:

• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma—2.019 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Hodgkin lymphoma—3.314 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Leukemia—3.574 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Multiple myeloma—4.257 times higher in the low-opportunity countries .

Dr Henneberg said that, having removed natural selection as the “janitor of the gene pool,” our modern society is faced with a controversial issue.

“It may be that the only way humankind can be rid of cancer once and for all is through genetic engineering—to repair our genes and take cancer out of the equation,” he said.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection have higher cancer rates than countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection, according to a study published in Evolutionary Applications.

Researchers said this is because modern medicine is enabling people to survive cancers, and their genetic backgrounds are passing from one generation to the next.

The team said the rate of some cancers has doubled and even quadrupled over the past 100 to 150 years, and human evolution has moved away from “survival of the fittest.”

“Modern medicine has enabled the human species to live much longer than would otherwise be expected in the natural world,” said study author Maciej Henneberg, PhD, DSc, of the University of Adelaide in South Australia.

“Besides the obvious benefits that modern medicine gives, it also brings with it an unexpected side-effect—allowing genetic material to be passed from one generation to the next that predisposes people to have poor health, such as type 1 diabetes or cancer.”

“Because of the quality of our healthcare in western society, we have almost removed natural selection as the ‘janitor of the gene pool.’ Unfortunately, the accumulation of genetic mutations over time and across multiple generations is like a delayed death sentence.”

Country comparison

The researchers studied global cancer data from the World Health Organization as well as other health and socioeconomic data from the United Nations and the World Bank of 173 countries. The team compared the top 10 countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection to the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection.

“We looked at countries that offered the greatest opportunity to survive cancer compared with those that didn’t,” said study author Wenpeng You, a PhD student at the University of Adelaide. “This does not only take into account factors such as socioeconomic status, urbanization, and quality of medical services but also low mortality and fertility rates, which are the 2 distinguishing features in the ‘better’ world.”

“Countries with low mortality rates may allow more people with cancer genetic background to reproduce and pass cancer genes/mutations to the next generation. Meanwhile, low fertility rates in these countries may not be able to have diverse biological variations to provide the opportunity for selecting a naturally fit population—for example, people without or with less cancer genetic background. Low mortality rate and low fertility rate in the ‘better’ world may have formed a self-reinforcing cycle which has accumulated cancer genetic background at a greater rate than previously thought.”

Based on the researchers’ analysis, the 20 countries are:

Cancer incidence

The researchers found the rates of most cancers were higher in the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection. The incidence of all cancers was 2.326 times higher in the low-opportunity countries than the high-opportunity ones.

The increased incidences of hematologic malignancies were as follows:

• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma—2.019 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Hodgkin lymphoma—3.314 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Leukemia—3.574 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Multiple myeloma—4.257 times higher in the low-opportunity countries .

Dr Henneberg said that, having removed natural selection as the “janitor of the gene pool,” our modern society is faced with a controversial issue.

“It may be that the only way humankind can be rid of cancer once and for all is through genetic engineering—to repair our genes and take cancer out of the equation,” he said.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection have higher cancer rates than countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection, according to a study published in Evolutionary Applications.

Researchers said this is because modern medicine is enabling people to survive cancers, and their genetic backgrounds are passing from one generation to the next.

The team said the rate of some cancers has doubled and even quadrupled over the past 100 to 150 years, and human evolution has moved away from “survival of the fittest.”

“Modern medicine has enabled the human species to live much longer than would otherwise be expected in the natural world,” said study author Maciej Henneberg, PhD, DSc, of the University of Adelaide in South Australia.

“Besides the obvious benefits that modern medicine gives, it also brings with it an unexpected side-effect—allowing genetic material to be passed from one generation to the next that predisposes people to have poor health, such as type 1 diabetes or cancer.”

“Because of the quality of our healthcare in western society, we have almost removed natural selection as the ‘janitor of the gene pool.’ Unfortunately, the accumulation of genetic mutations over time and across multiple generations is like a delayed death sentence.”

Country comparison

The researchers studied global cancer data from the World Health Organization as well as other health and socioeconomic data from the United Nations and the World Bank of 173 countries. The team compared the top 10 countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection to the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection.

“We looked at countries that offered the greatest opportunity to survive cancer compared with those that didn’t,” said study author Wenpeng You, a PhD student at the University of Adelaide. “This does not only take into account factors such as socioeconomic status, urbanization, and quality of medical services but also low mortality and fertility rates, which are the 2 distinguishing features in the ‘better’ world.”

“Countries with low mortality rates may allow more people with cancer genetic background to reproduce and pass cancer genes/mutations to the next generation. Meanwhile, low fertility rates in these countries may not be able to have diverse biological variations to provide the opportunity for selecting a naturally fit population—for example, people without or with less cancer genetic background. Low mortality rate and low fertility rate in the ‘better’ world may have formed a self-reinforcing cycle which has accumulated cancer genetic background at a greater rate than previously thought.”

Based on the researchers’ analysis, the 20 countries are:

Cancer incidence

The researchers found the rates of most cancers were higher in the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection. The incidence of all cancers was 2.326 times higher in the low-opportunity countries than the high-opportunity ones.

The increased incidences of hematologic malignancies were as follows:

• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma—2.019 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Hodgkin lymphoma—3.314 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Leukemia—3.574 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Multiple myeloma—4.257 times higher in the low-opportunity countries .

Dr Henneberg said that, having removed natural selection as the “janitor of the gene pool,” our modern society is faced with a controversial issue.

“It may be that the only way humankind can be rid of cancer once and for all is through genetic engineering—to repair our genes and take cancer out of the equation,” he said.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN) has announced the release of the newly completed NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™.

This resource includes information designed to support clinical decision-making regarding the use of radiation therapy in cancer patients.

The content is based on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and includes information from the 41 guidelines that reference radiation therapy.

“By compiling every recommendation for radiation therapy in one place, we’ve made it significantly easier for specialists . . .  to stay up-to-date on the very latest recommendations, regardless of how many different cancer types they treat,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

“This targeted content provides radiation oncologists with the specific, cutting-edge information they need, without forcing them to sift through any extraneous information. It’s part of our ongoing effort to always provide the most pertinent data on emerging treatment practices in the clearest, most efficient way possible.”

The NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium includes a full complement of radiation therapy recommendations found in the current NCCN guidelines, including specific treatment modalities such as 2D/3D conformal external beam radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, intra-operative radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiotherapy/stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy, image-guided radiation therapy, low dose-rate/high dose-rate brachytherapy, radioisotope, and particle therapy.

NCCN first announced the launch of the Radiation Therapy Compendium in March at the NCCN Annual Conference: Improving the Quality, Effectiveness, and Efficiency of Cancer Care.

At the time, the NCCN released a preliminary version of the compendium featuring 24 cancer types. The newly completed version now contains all 41 disease sites that are currently being treated using radiation therapy.

The compendium will be updated on a continual basis in conjunction with the library of clinical guidelines.

For more information and to access the NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium, visit NCCN.org/RTCompendium. The compendium is available free-of-charge through March 2018.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN) has announced the release of the newly completed NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™.

This resource includes information designed to support clinical decision-making regarding the use of radiation therapy in cancer patients.

The content is based on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and includes information from the 41 guidelines that reference radiation therapy.

“By compiling every recommendation for radiation therapy in one place, we’ve made it significantly easier for specialists . . .  to stay up-to-date on the very latest recommendations, regardless of how many different cancer types they treat,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

“This targeted content provides radiation oncologists with the specific, cutting-edge information they need, without forcing them to sift through any extraneous information. It’s part of our ongoing effort to always provide the most pertinent data on emerging treatment practices in the clearest, most efficient way possible.”

The NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium includes a full complement of radiation therapy recommendations found in the current NCCN guidelines, including specific treatment modalities such as 2D/3D conformal external beam radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, intra-operative radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiotherapy/stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy, image-guided radiation therapy, low dose-rate/high dose-rate brachytherapy, radioisotope, and particle therapy.

NCCN first announced the launch of the Radiation Therapy Compendium in March at the NCCN Annual Conference: Improving the Quality, Effectiveness, and Efficiency of Cancer Care.

At the time, the NCCN released a preliminary version of the compendium featuring 24 cancer types. The newly completed version now contains all 41 disease sites that are currently being treated using radiation therapy.

The compendium will be updated on a continual basis in conjunction with the library of clinical guidelines.

For more information and to access the NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium, visit NCCN.org/RTCompendium. The compendium is available free-of-charge through March 2018.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN) has announced the release of the newly completed NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™.

This resource includes information designed to support clinical decision-making regarding the use of radiation therapy in cancer patients.

The content is based on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and includes information from the 41 guidelines that reference radiation therapy.

“By compiling every recommendation for radiation therapy in one place, we’ve made it significantly easier for specialists . . .  to stay up-to-date on the very latest recommendations, regardless of how many different cancer types they treat,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

“This targeted content provides radiation oncologists with the specific, cutting-edge information they need, without forcing them to sift through any extraneous information. It’s part of our ongoing effort to always provide the most pertinent data on emerging treatment practices in the clearest, most efficient way possible.”

The NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium includes a full complement of radiation therapy recommendations found in the current NCCN guidelines, including specific treatment modalities such as 2D/3D conformal external beam radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, intra-operative radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiotherapy/stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy, image-guided radiation therapy, low dose-rate/high dose-rate brachytherapy, radioisotope, and particle therapy.

NCCN first announced the launch of the Radiation Therapy Compendium in March at the NCCN Annual Conference: Improving the Quality, Effectiveness, and Efficiency of Cancer Care.

At the time, the NCCN released a preliminary version of the compendium featuring 24 cancer types. The newly completed version now contains all 41 disease sites that are currently being treated using radiation therapy.

The compendium will be updated on a continual basis in conjunction with the library of clinical guidelines.

For more information and to access the NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium, visit NCCN.org/RTCompendium. The compendium is available free-of-charge through March 2018.

Phase 1 data on venetoclax monotherapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, initially presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, have been published in Blood.

Of 66 patients enrolled in the study (NCT01794520), 61% were bortezomib and lenalidomide double refractory, and 46% had t(11;14), said Shaji Kumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn, and his colleagues.

The overall response rate was 21% (14/66), and 15% achieved very good or better partial responses; 12 of the 14 responses occurred in patients with t(11;14).

(Click here to read the initial report and to view a video of Dr. Kumar discussing the study results at ASH 2016.)

Venetoclax is a selective, orally bioavailable BCL-2 inhibitor that is particularly effective against MM cells harboring t(11;14). Biomarker analysis confirmed that response to venetoclax correlated with higher BCL2:BCL2L1 and BCL2:MCL1 mRNA expression ratios.

The study is sponsored by Abbvie, and Dr. Kumar receives research support from Abbvie.

Phase 1 data on venetoclax monotherapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, initially presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, have been published in Blood.

Of 66 patients enrolled in the study (NCT01794520), 61% were bortezomib and lenalidomide double refractory, and 46% had t(11;14), said Shaji Kumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn, and his colleagues.

The overall response rate was 21% (14/66), and 15% achieved very good or better partial responses; 12 of the 14 responses occurred in patients with t(11;14).

(Click here to read the initial report and to view a video of Dr. Kumar discussing the study results at ASH 2016.)

Venetoclax is a selective, orally bioavailable BCL-2 inhibitor that is particularly effective against MM cells harboring t(11;14). Biomarker analysis confirmed that response to venetoclax correlated with higher BCL2:BCL2L1 and BCL2:MCL1 mRNA expression ratios.

The study is sponsored by Abbvie, and Dr. Kumar receives research support from Abbvie.

Phase 1 data on venetoclax monotherapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, initially presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, have been published in Blood.

Of 66 patients enrolled in the study (NCT01794520), 61% were bortezomib and lenalidomide double refractory, and 46% had t(11;14), said Shaji Kumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn, and his colleagues.

The overall response rate was 21% (14/66), and 15% achieved very good or better partial responses; 12 of the 14 responses occurred in patients with t(11;14).

(Click here to read the initial report and to view a video of Dr. Kumar discussing the study results at ASH 2016.)

Venetoclax is a selective, orally bioavailable BCL-2 inhibitor that is particularly effective against MM cells harboring t(11;14). Biomarker analysis confirmed that response to venetoclax correlated with higher BCL2:BCL2L1 and BCL2:MCL1 mRNA expression ratios.

The study is sponsored by Abbvie, and Dr. Kumar receives research support from Abbvie.

SAN FRANCISCO – The approach to relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) has to be tailored patient by patient based on the biology of the disease, frailty measures, comorbidities, and prior treatment regimens, Natalie Callander, MD, director of the myeloma clinical program at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said at the annual congress on Hematologic Malignancies held by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Despite major treatment breakthroughs in recent years and a wide swath of therapeutic options, multiple myeloma is still an incurable disease that eventually relapses in most patients, Dr. Callander, vice chair of the NCCN Multiple Myeloma Panel, said. “If you are having trouble with your relapsed or refractory patients, you’re not alone.”

As a guide to individualize the treatment approach, the NCCN has put together recommendations for patients with relapsed/recalcitrant MM. “Preferred regimens” include bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone and other well-established combinations supported by evidence from Phase 1 trials. When relapse occurs more than 6 months after primary induction, one option is simply to repeat the induction therapy.

A long list of “other recommended regimens” includes 21 combination options supported by “very strong Phase 2 data,” she said. The NCCN also has a third list of regimens for the most aggressive disease and certain special circumstances. Two powerful combinations that are used to get the disease under control quickly include high-dose cyclophosphamide or dexamethasone/thalidomide/cisplatin/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/etoposide, (DT-PACE) with or without bortezomib.

Dr. Callander underscored the importance of differentiating biochemical relapse, such as increases in serum M protein or other indicators, from clinical relapse, such as new soft tissue plasmacytomas or hypercalcemia.

Patients with clinical relapse typically need a quicker and more vigorous therapeutic response, she said. Studies have found that those in biochemical relapse tend to do better than those in symptomatic relapse.

“This whole concept of biochemical versus symptomatic is really important,” Dr. Callander said.

Among the tips she offered for managing patients with relapse, were to perform a repeat bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetics to gauge the presence of high-risk biology, since this category of patients tends to do far worse and to need a more aggressive treatment approach.

“Getting that kind of information with that follow-up bone marrow biopsy might be very important,” she said.

It’s important to be aware of the phenomenon of “light chain escape,” in which patients with relapsed/refractory disease can stop making intact immunoglobulin G. It’s thought to be due to clonal evolution, in which the clone that was making intact immunoglobulin becomes less dominant. These patients tend to do worse than similar patients who don’t exhibit this phenomenon, Dr. Callander said.

Dr. Callander reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – The approach to relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) has to be tailored patient by patient based on the biology of the disease, frailty measures, comorbidities, and prior treatment regimens, Natalie Callander, MD, director of the myeloma clinical program at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said at the annual congress on Hematologic Malignancies held by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Despite major treatment breakthroughs in recent years and a wide swath of therapeutic options, multiple myeloma is still an incurable disease that eventually relapses in most patients, Dr. Callander, vice chair of the NCCN Multiple Myeloma Panel, said. “If you are having trouble with your relapsed or refractory patients, you’re not alone.”

As a guide to individualize the treatment approach, the NCCN has put together recommendations for patients with relapsed/recalcitrant MM. “Preferred regimens” include bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone and other well-established combinations supported by evidence from Phase 1 trials. When relapse occurs more than 6 months after primary induction, one option is simply to repeat the induction therapy.

A long list of “other recommended regimens” includes 21 combination options supported by “very strong Phase 2 data,” she said. The NCCN also has a third list of regimens for the most aggressive disease and certain special circumstances. Two powerful combinations that are used to get the disease under control quickly include high-dose cyclophosphamide or dexamethasone/thalidomide/cisplatin/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/etoposide, (DT-PACE) with or without bortezomib.

Dr. Callander underscored the importance of differentiating biochemical relapse, such as increases in serum M protein or other indicators, from clinical relapse, such as new soft tissue plasmacytomas or hypercalcemia.

Patients with clinical relapse typically need a quicker and more vigorous therapeutic response, she said. Studies have found that those in biochemical relapse tend to do better than those in symptomatic relapse.

“This whole concept of biochemical versus symptomatic is really important,” Dr. Callander said.

Among the tips she offered for managing patients with relapse, were to perform a repeat bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetics to gauge the presence of high-risk biology, since this category of patients tends to do far worse and to need a more aggressive treatment approach.

“Getting that kind of information with that follow-up bone marrow biopsy might be very important,” she said.

It’s important to be aware of the phenomenon of “light chain escape,” in which patients with relapsed/refractory disease can stop making intact immunoglobulin G. It’s thought to be due to clonal evolution, in which the clone that was making intact immunoglobulin becomes less dominant. These patients tend to do worse than similar patients who don’t exhibit this phenomenon, Dr. Callander said.

Dr. Callander reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – The approach to relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) has to be tailored patient by patient based on the biology of the disease, frailty measures, comorbidities, and prior treatment regimens, Natalie Callander, MD, director of the myeloma clinical program at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said at the annual congress on Hematologic Malignancies held by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Despite major treatment breakthroughs in recent years and a wide swath of therapeutic options, multiple myeloma is still an incurable disease that eventually relapses in most patients, Dr. Callander, vice chair of the NCCN Multiple Myeloma Panel, said. “If you are having trouble with your relapsed or refractory patients, you’re not alone.”

As a guide to individualize the treatment approach, the NCCN has put together recommendations for patients with relapsed/recalcitrant MM. “Preferred regimens” include bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone and other well-established combinations supported by evidence from Phase 1 trials. When relapse occurs more than 6 months after primary induction, one option is simply to repeat the induction therapy.

A long list of “other recommended regimens” includes 21 combination options supported by “very strong Phase 2 data,” she said. The NCCN also has a third list of regimens for the most aggressive disease and certain special circumstances. Two powerful combinations that are used to get the disease under control quickly include high-dose cyclophosphamide or dexamethasone/thalidomide/cisplatin/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/etoposide, (DT-PACE) with or without bortezomib.

Dr. Callander underscored the importance of differentiating biochemical relapse, such as increases in serum M protein or other indicators, from clinical relapse, such as new soft tissue plasmacytomas or hypercalcemia.

Patients with clinical relapse typically need a quicker and more vigorous therapeutic response, she said. Studies have found that those in biochemical relapse tend to do better than those in symptomatic relapse.

“This whole concept of biochemical versus symptomatic is really important,” Dr. Callander said.

Among the tips she offered for managing patients with relapse, were to perform a repeat bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetics to gauge the presence of high-risk biology, since this category of patients tends to do far worse and to need a more aggressive treatment approach.

“Getting that kind of information with that follow-up bone marrow biopsy might be very important,” she said.

It’s important to be aware of the phenomenon of “light chain escape,” in which patients with relapsed/refractory disease can stop making intact immunoglobulin G. It’s thought to be due to clonal evolution, in which the clone that was making intact immunoglobulin becomes less dominant. These patients tend to do worse than similar patients who don’t exhibit this phenomenon, Dr. Callander said.

Dr. Callander reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter saying the agency cannot approve MYL-1401H, a proposed biosimilar of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta).

Biocon and Mylan are seeking approval of MYL-1401H to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving chemotherapy to treat non-myeloid malignancies.

Biocon and Mylan filed the biologics license application for MYL-1401H in February.

The FDA had planned to issue a decision on the application by October 9.

Biocon and Mylan said the FDA’s complete response letter relates to a pending update to the application. The update involves chemistry manufacturing and control data from facility requalification activities after recent plant modifications.

The complete response letter did not raise any questions on the biosimilarity of MYL-1401H, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, clinical data, or immunogenicity. (Results of a phase 3 study presented at ESMO 2016 Congress suggested MYL-1401H is equivalent to Neulasta.)

Biocon and Mylan said they do not expect the complete response letter for MYL-1401H to impact the commercial launch timing of the drug in the US. The companies said they are committed to working with the FDA to resolve the issues outlined in the letter.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter saying the agency cannot approve MYL-1401H, a proposed biosimilar of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta).

Biocon and Mylan are seeking approval of MYL-1401H to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving chemotherapy to treat non-myeloid malignancies.

Biocon and Mylan filed the biologics license application for MYL-1401H in February.

The FDA had planned to issue a decision on the application by October 9.

Biocon and Mylan said the FDA’s complete response letter relates to a pending update to the application. The update involves chemistry manufacturing and control data from facility requalification activities after recent plant modifications.

The complete response letter did not raise any questions on the biosimilarity of MYL-1401H, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, clinical data, or immunogenicity. (Results of a phase 3 study presented at ESMO 2016 Congress suggested MYL-1401H is equivalent to Neulasta.)

Biocon and Mylan said they do not expect the complete response letter for MYL-1401H to impact the commercial launch timing of the drug in the US. The companies said they are committed to working with the FDA to resolve the issues outlined in the letter.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter saying the agency cannot approve MYL-1401H, a proposed biosimilar of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta).

Biocon and Mylan are seeking approval of MYL-1401H to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving chemotherapy to treat non-myeloid malignancies.

Biocon and Mylan filed the biologics license application for MYL-1401H in February.

The FDA had planned to issue a decision on the application by October 9.

Biocon and Mylan said the FDA’s complete response letter relates to a pending update to the application. The update involves chemistry manufacturing and control data from facility requalification activities after recent plant modifications.

The complete response letter did not raise any questions on the biosimilarity of MYL-1401H, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, clinical data, or immunogenicity. (Results of a phase 3 study presented at ESMO 2016 Congress suggested MYL-1401H is equivalent to Neulasta.)

Biocon and Mylan said they do not expect the complete response letter for MYL-1401H to impact the commercial launch timing of the drug in the US. The companies said they are committed to working with the FDA to resolve the issues outlined in the letter.

Photo courtesy of NIH

Primary care may not meet the healthcare needs of cancer survivors in the US, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Researchers examined 12 advanced primary care practices selected from a national registry of “workforce innovators” and found that none of these practices had a comprehensive survivorship care program in place.

In addition, there were 3 main barriers to survivorship care—not treating cancer survivors as a distinct population, limitations of electronic health records, and a lack of information and guidance for clinicians.

“This is troubling because these are highly innovative practices that have a national reputation,” said study author Benjamin Crabtree, PhD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues evaluated survivorship care* at the 12 practices, which were based in Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Over nearly 2 years, the team spent 10 to 12 days observing each of the practices and interviewing clinicians and administrators.

In this way, the researchers identified 3 main barriers to integrating survivorship care into primary medicine.

Barrier 1

The first barrier was that clinicians did not treat cancer survivors as a distinct population or clinical category.

“There is no diagnosis code for ‘cancer survivor’ that can be entered into the medical record, which is important if you want physicians to pay attention,” Dr Crabtree said.

Some of the clinicians interviewed said their care was comprehensive enough to address the needs of all patients. Other clinicians did not understand what survivorship care entails.

Barrier 2

The second barrier was that electronic health record systems didn’t support survivorship care.

Clinicians reported an inability to identify patients with a history of cancer. Even if a patient’s cancer history was included in his or her record, it might take searching through multiple screens to find the information.

In addition, medical records were sometimes lost as patients changed clinicians over the years, which left it up to patients to report their cancer histories.

Barrier 3

The third barrier was that clinicians did not receive adequate information or guidance for follow-up care of cancer survivors.

Although some of the practices received cancer-related information about their patients, it was considered “inadequate” or “not actionable.”

Clinicians expressed concerns about their knowledge gaps in cancer care and the need to monitor changing information in oncology.

“There is nothing in the residency curriculum about cancer survivorship,” Dr Crabtree said. “There is also nothing in Continuing Medical Education courses. It’s just not there.”

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues believe these barriers must be addressed so that comprehensive cancer survivorship services can move to the forefront of primary care.

* Survivorship care includes checking for cancer recurrence, monitoring long-term effects of radiation and chemotherapy, and assessing a patient’s psychological well-being.

Photo courtesy of NIH

Primary care may not meet the healthcare needs of cancer survivors in the US, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Researchers examined 12 advanced primary care practices selected from a national registry of “workforce innovators” and found that none of these practices had a comprehensive survivorship care program in place.

In addition, there were 3 main barriers to survivorship care—not treating cancer survivors as a distinct population, limitations of electronic health records, and a lack of information and guidance for clinicians.

“This is troubling because these are highly innovative practices that have a national reputation,” said study author Benjamin Crabtree, PhD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues evaluated survivorship care* at the 12 practices, which were based in Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Over nearly 2 years, the team spent 10 to 12 days observing each of the practices and interviewing clinicians and administrators.

In this way, the researchers identified 3 main barriers to integrating survivorship care into primary medicine.

Barrier 1

The first barrier was that clinicians did not treat cancer survivors as a distinct population or clinical category.

“There is no diagnosis code for ‘cancer survivor’ that can be entered into the medical record, which is important if you want physicians to pay attention,” Dr Crabtree said.

Some of the clinicians interviewed said their care was comprehensive enough to address the needs of all patients. Other clinicians did not understand what survivorship care entails.

Barrier 2

The second barrier was that electronic health record systems didn’t support survivorship care.

Clinicians reported an inability to identify patients with a history of cancer. Even if a patient’s cancer history was included in his or her record, it might take searching through multiple screens to find the information.

In addition, medical records were sometimes lost as patients changed clinicians over the years, which left it up to patients to report their cancer histories.

Barrier 3

The third barrier was that clinicians did not receive adequate information or guidance for follow-up care of cancer survivors.

Although some of the practices received cancer-related information about their patients, it was considered “inadequate” or “not actionable.”

Clinicians expressed concerns about their knowledge gaps in cancer care and the need to monitor changing information in oncology.

“There is nothing in the residency curriculum about cancer survivorship,” Dr Crabtree said. “There is also nothing in Continuing Medical Education courses. It’s just not there.”

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues believe these barriers must be addressed so that comprehensive cancer survivorship services can move to the forefront of primary care.

* Survivorship care includes checking for cancer recurrence, monitoring long-term effects of radiation and chemotherapy, and assessing a patient’s psychological well-being.

Photo courtesy of NIH

Primary care may not meet the healthcare needs of cancer survivors in the US, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Researchers examined 12 advanced primary care practices selected from a national registry of “workforce innovators” and found that none of these practices had a comprehensive survivorship care program in place.

In addition, there were 3 main barriers to survivorship care—not treating cancer survivors as a distinct population, limitations of electronic health records, and a lack of information and guidance for clinicians.

“This is troubling because these are highly innovative practices that have a national reputation,” said study author Benjamin Crabtree, PhD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues evaluated survivorship care* at the 12 practices, which were based in Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Over nearly 2 years, the team spent 10 to 12 days observing each of the practices and interviewing clinicians and administrators.

In this way, the researchers identified 3 main barriers to integrating survivorship care into primary medicine.

Barrier 1

The first barrier was that clinicians did not treat cancer survivors as a distinct population or clinical category.

“There is no diagnosis code for ‘cancer survivor’ that can be entered into the medical record, which is important if you want physicians to pay attention,” Dr Crabtree said.

Some of the clinicians interviewed said their care was comprehensive enough to address the needs of all patients. Other clinicians did not understand what survivorship care entails.

Barrier 2

The second barrier was that electronic health record systems didn’t support survivorship care.

Clinicians reported an inability to identify patients with a history of cancer. Even if a patient’s cancer history was included in his or her record, it might take searching through multiple screens to find the information.

In addition, medical records were sometimes lost as patients changed clinicians over the years, which left it up to patients to report their cancer histories.

Barrier 3

The third barrier was that clinicians did not receive adequate information or guidance for follow-up care of cancer survivors.

Although some of the practices received cancer-related information about their patients, it was considered “inadequate” or “not actionable.”

Clinicians expressed concerns about their knowledge gaps in cancer care and the need to monitor changing information in oncology.

“There is nothing in the residency curriculum about cancer survivorship,” Dr Crabtree said. “There is also nothing in Continuing Medical Education courses. It’s just not there.”

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues believe these barriers must be addressed so that comprehensive cancer survivorship services can move to the forefront of primary care.

* Survivorship care includes checking for cancer recurrence, monitoring long-term effects of radiation and chemotherapy, and assessing a patient’s psychological well-being.

Woman on a scale

Cancers associated with being overweight or obese accounted for about 40% of all cancers diagnosed in the US in 2014, according to the latest Vital Signs report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has identified 13 cancers associated with overweight and obesity—multiple myeloma (MM), meningioma, adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, and thyroid, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, stomach, liver, pancreatic, kidney, ovarian, uterine, and colorectal cancers.

For the Vital Signs report, researchers reviewed US data from 2005 to 2014 to determine trends for cancers associated with being overweight (having a body mass index [BMI] of 25 to 29.9 kg/m²) or obese (having a BMI of 30 kg/m² and higher).

In 2014, roughly 631,000 people were diagnosed with cancers associated with overweight and obesity, which represents 40% of all cancers diagnosed.

Fifty-five percent of all cancers diagnosed in women and 24% of those diagnosed in men were associated with overweight and obesity.

Incidence rates of the 13 cancers combined were highest in non-Hispanic blacks, followed by non-Hispanic whites, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Hispanics, and Asians/Pacific Islanders.

Incidence over time

Overall, the incidence of cancers associated with overweight and obesity decreased 2% from 2005 to 2014.

However, when colorectal cancer was excluded, the incidence of the other 12 cancers combined increased 7% from 2005 to 2014. The incidence of colorectal cancer decreased 23% during that time. Researchers said this was due, in large part, to screening.

The incidence of cancers not associated with overweight and obesity decreased 13% from 2005 to 2014.

The incidence of MM increased over the period studied, but it was not a significant increase. The incidence rate of MM was 5.6 per 100,000 persons (age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population) in 2005 and 6.0 per 100,000 persons in 2014.

So overall, there was an 8% increase in MM incidence rate from 2005 to 2014, or a 1.1% average annual increase. There was a 2% increase in the risk of MM per 1 kg/m² increase in BMI.

Like MM, 3 other cancers had fairly stable incidence rates over the study period—adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gallbladder cancer, and postmenopausal breast cancer.

However, incidence rates increased significantly each year for thyroid cancer (4.0% per year), liver cancer (2.9%), gastric cardia cancer (1.2%), endometrial cancer (1.1%), pancreatic cancer (0.8%), and kidney cancer (0.7%).

And incidence rates decreased signifi­cantly each year for meningioma (-3.8%), colorectal cancer (-2.9%), and ovarian cancer (-2.0%).

Woman on a scale

Cancers associated with being overweight or obese accounted for about 40% of all cancers diagnosed in the US in 2014, according to the latest Vital Signs report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has identified 13 cancers associated with overweight and obesity—multiple myeloma (MM), meningioma, adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, and thyroid, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, stomach, liver, pancreatic, kidney, ovarian, uterine, and colorectal cancers.

For the Vital Signs report, researchers reviewed US data from 2005 to 2014 to determine trends for cancers associated with being overweight (having a body mass index [BMI] of 25 to 29.9 kg/m²) or obese (having a BMI of 30 kg/m² and higher).

In 2014, roughly 631,000 people were diagnosed with cancers associated with overweight and obesity, which represents 40% of all cancers diagnosed.

Fifty-five percent of all cancers diagnosed in women and 24% of those diagnosed in men were associated with overweight and obesity.

Incidence rates of the 13 cancers combined were highest in non-Hispanic blacks, followed by non-Hispanic whites, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Hispanics, and Asians/Pacific Islanders.

Incidence over time

Overall, the incidence of cancers associated with overweight and obesity decreased 2% from 2005 to 2014.

However, when colorectal cancer was excluded, the incidence of the other 12 cancers combined increased 7% from 2005 to 2014. The incidence of colorectal cancer decreased 23% during that time. Researchers said this was due, in large part, to screening.

The incidence of cancers not associated with overweight and obesity decreased 13% from 2005 to 2014.

The incidence of MM increased over the period studied, but it was not a significant increase. The incidence rate of MM was 5.6 per 100,000 persons (age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population) in 2005 and 6.0 per 100,000 persons in 2014.

So overall, there was an 8% increase in MM incidence rate from 2005 to 2014, or a 1.1% average annual increase. There was a 2% increase in the risk of MM per 1 kg/m² increase in BMI.

Like MM, 3 other cancers had fairly stable incidence rates over the study period—adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gallbladder cancer, and postmenopausal breast cancer.

However, incidence rates increased significantly each year for thyroid cancer (4.0% per year), liver cancer (2.9%), gastric cardia cancer (1.2%), endometrial cancer (1.1%), pancreatic cancer (0.8%), and kidney cancer (0.7%).

And incidence rates decreased signifi­cantly each year for meningioma (-3.8%), colorectal cancer (-2.9%), and ovarian cancer (-2.0%).

Woman on a scale

Cancers associated with being overweight or obese accounted for about 40% of all cancers diagnosed in the US in 2014, according to the latest Vital Signs report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has identified 13 cancers associated with overweight and obesity—multiple myeloma (MM), meningioma, adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, and thyroid, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, stomach, liver, pancreatic, kidney, ovarian, uterine, and colorectal cancers.

For the Vital Signs report, researchers reviewed US data from 2005 to 2014 to determine trends for cancers associated with being overweight (having a body mass index [BMI] of 25 to 29.9 kg/m²) or obese (having a BMI of 30 kg/m² and higher).

In 2014, roughly 631,000 people were diagnosed with cancers associated with overweight and obesity, which represents 40% of all cancers diagnosed.

Fifty-five percent of all cancers diagnosed in women and 24% of those diagnosed in men were associated with overweight and obesity.

Incidence rates of the 13 cancers combined were highest in non-Hispanic blacks, followed by non-Hispanic whites, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Hispanics, and Asians/Pacific Islanders.

Incidence over time

Overall, the incidence of cancers associated with overweight and obesity decreased 2% from 2005 to 2014.

However, when colorectal cancer was excluded, the incidence of the other 12 cancers combined increased 7% from 2005 to 2014. The incidence of colorectal cancer decreased 23% during that time. Researchers said this was due, in large part, to screening.

The incidence of cancers not associated with overweight and obesity decreased 13% from 2005 to 2014.

The incidence of MM increased over the period studied, but it was not a significant increase. The incidence rate of MM was 5.6 per 100,000 persons (age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population) in 2005 and 6.0 per 100,000 persons in 2014.

So overall, there was an 8% increase in MM incidence rate from 2005 to 2014, or a 1.1% average annual increase. There was a 2% increase in the risk of MM per 1 kg/m² increase in BMI.

Like MM, 3 other cancers had fairly stable incidence rates over the study period—adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gallbladder cancer, and postmenopausal breast cancer.

However, incidence rates increased significantly each year for thyroid cancer (4.0% per year), liver cancer (2.9%), gastric cardia cancer (1.2%), endometrial cancer (1.1%), pancreatic cancer (0.8%), and kidney cancer (0.7%).

And incidence rates decreased signifi­cantly each year for meningioma (-3.8%), colorectal cancer (-2.9%), and ovarian cancer (-2.0%).

Photo courtesy of ASTRO

SAN DIEGO—New research suggests a need for mental health screening among cancer patients.

The study revealed a 40% rate of depression among patients treated at an urban cancer center over a 3-year period.

Three-quarters of the depressed patients were previously undiagnosed.

Female patients and those who were unable to work due to disability were more likely to be depressed.

Jason Domogauer, PhD, of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, presented these findings at ASTRO’s 59th Annual Meeting.

“Depression is widely recognized as an underdiagnosed disorder, particularly among older adults and cancer patients,” Dr Domogauer said. “Our findings point to a clear need for action, including depression screening during initial and continuing patient visits, initiation of mental health treatments for identified patients, and increased collaboration with mental health providers in cancer treatment centers. These efforts are particularly important for patients in urban centers, those who are female, and those who are unable to work because of their disease.”

Dr Domogauer and his colleagues studied 400 cancer patients who received treatment at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School/University Hospital Cancer Center between 2013 and 2016.

The average patient age was 55 (range, 20-86), and 53% of patients were female. Forty-eight percent of patients were African-American, 29% were non-Hispanic white, and 16% were Hispanic.

Nearly equal numbers of patients reported being able to work (49%) or unable to work due to disability (51%). Most patients (85%) received radiation as part of their cancer treatment.

The researchers assessed depression in the patients using a minimum score of 16 on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.

In this way, 40% of the patients were diagnosed with depression. In 75% of these patients, depression was previously undiagnosed. This means roughly 30% of the overall patient population suffered from undiagnosed and untreated depression.

Depression was more common among females than males—47% and 32%, respectively (odds ratio [OR]=1.9, P=0.007).

Depression was also more likely among patients who were unable to work due to disability—48%, compared to 33% of those able to work (OR=1.9, P=0.005).

Depression prevalence did not differ significantly among racial/ethnic groups.

When the researchers looked specifically at patients who were previously not diagnosed with depression, the effects of being female or unable to work persisted.

In this subgroup, depression was more common among women than men—43% and 29%, respectively (OR=1.9, P=0.02)—and patients with disability compared to able patients—43% and 31%, respectively (OR=1.7, P=0.03).

Photo courtesy of ASTRO

SAN DIEGO—New research suggests a need for mental health screening among cancer patients.

The study revealed a 40% rate of depression among patients treated at an urban cancer center over a 3-year period.

Three-quarters of the depressed patients were previously undiagnosed.

Female patients and those who were unable to work due to disability were more likely to be depressed.

Jason Domogauer, PhD, of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, presented these findings at ASTRO’s 59th Annual Meeting.

“Depression is widely recognized as an underdiagnosed disorder, particularly among older adults and cancer patients,” Dr Domogauer said. “Our findings point to a clear need for action, including depression screening during initial and continuing patient visits, initiation of mental health treatments for identified patients, and increased collaboration with mental health providers in cancer treatment centers. These efforts are particularly important for patients in urban centers, those who are female, and those who are unable to work because of their disease.”

Dr Domogauer and his colleagues studied 400 cancer patients who received treatment at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School/University Hospital Cancer Center between 2013 and 2016.

The average patient age was 55 (range, 20-86), and 53% of patients were female. Forty-eight percent of patients were African-American, 29% were non-Hispanic white, and 16% were Hispanic.

Nearly equal numbers of patients reported being able to work (49%) or unable to work due to disability (51%). Most patients (85%) received radiation as part of their cancer treatment.

The researchers assessed depression in the patients using a minimum score of 16 on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.

In this way, 40% of the patients were diagnosed with depression. In 75% of these patients, depression was previously undiagnosed. This means roughly 30% of the overall patient population suffered from undiagnosed and untreated depression.

Depression was more common among females than males—47% and 32%, respectively (odds ratio [OR]=1.9, P=0.007).

Depression was also more likely among patients who were unable to work due to disability—48%, compared to 33% of those able to work (OR=1.9, P=0.005).

Depression prevalence did not differ significantly among racial/ethnic groups.

When the researchers looked specifically at patients who were previously not diagnosed with depression, the effects of being female or unable to work persisted.

In this subgroup, depression was more common among women than men—43% and 29%, respectively (OR=1.9, P=0.02)—and patients with disability compared to able patients—43% and 31%, respectively (OR=1.7, P=0.03).

Photo courtesy of ASTRO

SAN DIEGO—New research suggests a need for mental health screening among cancer patients.

The study revealed a 40% rate of depression among patients treated at an urban cancer center over a 3-year period.

Three-quarters of the depressed patients were previously undiagnosed.

Female patients and those who were unable to work due to disability were more likely to be depressed.

Jason Domogauer, PhD, of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, presented these findings at ASTRO’s 59th Annual Meeting.

“Depression is widely recognized as an underdiagnosed disorder, particularly among older adults and cancer patients,” Dr Domogauer said. “Our findings point to a clear need for action, including depression screening during initial and continuing patient visits, initiation of mental health treatments for identified patients, and increased collaboration with mental health providers in cancer treatment centers. These efforts are particularly important for patients in urban centers, those who are female, and those who are unable to work because of their disease.”

Dr Domogauer and his colleagues studied 400 cancer patients who received treatment at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School/University Hospital Cancer Center between 2013 and 2016.

The average patient age was 55 (range, 20-86), and 53% of patients were female. Forty-eight percent of patients were African-American, 29% were non-Hispanic white, and 16% were Hispanic.

Nearly equal numbers of patients reported being able to work (49%) or unable to work due to disability (51%). Most patients (85%) received radiation as part of their cancer treatment.

The researchers assessed depression in the patients using a minimum score of 16 on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.

In this way, 40% of the patients were diagnosed with depression. In 75% of these patients, depression was previously undiagnosed. This means roughly 30% of the overall patient population suffered from undiagnosed and untreated depression.

Depression was more common among females than males—47% and 32%, respectively (odds ratio [OR]=1.9, P=0.007).

Depression was also more likely among patients who were unable to work due to disability—48%, compared to 33% of those able to work (OR=1.9, P=0.005).

Depression prevalence did not differ significantly among racial/ethnic groups.

When the researchers looked specifically at patients who were previously not diagnosed with depression, the effects of being female or unable to work persisted.

In this subgroup, depression was more common among women than men—43% and 29%, respectively (OR=1.9, P=0.02)—and patients with disability compared to able patients—43% and 31%, respectively (OR=1.7, P=0.03).