Neuro-oncology

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

Timing of a switch to treatment from gefitinib to osimertinib based on molecular progression led to an earlier switch than timing based on conventional measures in a new study of 100 adults with epidermal growth factor (EGFR)–mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Previous studies have suggested that molecular progression of disease in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, as measured by sequential plasma EGFR T790M, may precede radiological progression, as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

However, the impact of these measures on timing of treatment changes and patient outcomes has not been examined, wrote Jordi Remon, MD, of Paris (France)–Saclay University and colleagues, in Annals of Oncology.

The European Organization for Research Treatment and Cancer Lung Cancer Group designed a phase 2 clinical trial known as APPLE to evaluate the use of sequential plasma EGFR T790M and determine the optimal sequencing for gefitinib and osimertinib in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

The researchers reported results from two randomized arms of the APPLE trial. In arm B, 52 patients received gefitinib until emergence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) EGFR T790M mutation, based on the cobas EGFR test v2 (a real-time PCR test), or progression of disease based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). In arm C, 51 patients received gefitinib until disease progression based on RECIST. Both arms then switched to osimertinib. Patients randomized to a third arm (arm A) received osimertinib upfront until progression of disease based on RECIST, and they were not included in the current study.

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) while receiving osimertinib at 18 months in patients who were originally randomized to gefitinib, then switched to osimertinib at the emergence of circulating tumor DNA. Secondary endpoints included PFS, overall response rate, overall survival, and brain PFS.

Patients entered the study between November 2017 and February 2020. A total of 75% and 65% of those in arms B and C, respectively, were female, approximately 65% had the mutation EGFR Del19, and approximately one-third had baseline brain metastases. In arm B, 17% of patients switched to osimertinib based on the emergence of ctDNA T790M mutation before progressive disease based on RECIST. The median time to molecular disease progression was 266 days.

More patients in arm B met the primary endpoint of PFS while receiving osimertinib at 18 months (67.2%) than in arm C (53.5%), after a median follow-up of 30 months.

As for secondary endpoints, the median PFS in the two arms was 22.0 months and 20.2 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 42.8 months in arm C and was not reached in arm B. The median brain PFS was 24.4 months for arm B and 21.4 months for arm C.

The benefits seen in the osimertinib patients may be due in part to the timing of the switch to correspond with molecular or radiological disease progression, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

In the future, more research is needed to determine whether molecular monitoring may impact patients’ outcomes, compared with monitoring based on radiological progression, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the rapid evolution in the treatment landscape of EGFR-mutant NSCLC, the researchers noted.

Osimertinib is currently considered the preferred first-line treatment by most physicians, they said. “The APPLE trial is the first prospective study supporting the role of dynamic adaptive strategies based on ctDNA monitoring in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Remon had no financial conflicts to disclose. Corresponding author Dr. Dziadziuszko disclosed honoraria for consultancy or lectures from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Timing of a switch to treatment from gefitinib to osimertinib based on molecular progression led to an earlier switch than timing based on conventional measures in a new study of 100 adults with epidermal growth factor (EGFR)–mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Previous studies have suggested that molecular progression of disease in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, as measured by sequential plasma EGFR T790M, may precede radiological progression, as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

However, the impact of these measures on timing of treatment changes and patient outcomes has not been examined, wrote Jordi Remon, MD, of Paris (France)–Saclay University and colleagues, in Annals of Oncology.

The European Organization for Research Treatment and Cancer Lung Cancer Group designed a phase 2 clinical trial known as APPLE to evaluate the use of sequential plasma EGFR T790M and determine the optimal sequencing for gefitinib and osimertinib in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

The researchers reported results from two randomized arms of the APPLE trial. In arm B, 52 patients received gefitinib until emergence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) EGFR T790M mutation, based on the cobas EGFR test v2 (a real-time PCR test), or progression of disease based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). In arm C, 51 patients received gefitinib until disease progression based on RECIST. Both arms then switched to osimertinib. Patients randomized to a third arm (arm A) received osimertinib upfront until progression of disease based on RECIST, and they were not included in the current study.

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) while receiving osimertinib at 18 months in patients who were originally randomized to gefitinib, then switched to osimertinib at the emergence of circulating tumor DNA. Secondary endpoints included PFS, overall response rate, overall survival, and brain PFS.

Patients entered the study between November 2017 and February 2020. A total of 75% and 65% of those in arms B and C, respectively, were female, approximately 65% had the mutation EGFR Del19, and approximately one-third had baseline brain metastases. In arm B, 17% of patients switched to osimertinib based on the emergence of ctDNA T790M mutation before progressive disease based on RECIST. The median time to molecular disease progression was 266 days.

More patients in arm B met the primary endpoint of PFS while receiving osimertinib at 18 months (67.2%) than in arm C (53.5%), after a median follow-up of 30 months.

As for secondary endpoints, the median PFS in the two arms was 22.0 months and 20.2 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 42.8 months in arm C and was not reached in arm B. The median brain PFS was 24.4 months for arm B and 21.4 months for arm C.

The benefits seen in the osimertinib patients may be due in part to the timing of the switch to correspond with molecular or radiological disease progression, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

In the future, more research is needed to determine whether molecular monitoring may impact patients’ outcomes, compared with monitoring based on radiological progression, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the rapid evolution in the treatment landscape of EGFR-mutant NSCLC, the researchers noted.

Osimertinib is currently considered the preferred first-line treatment by most physicians, they said. “The APPLE trial is the first prospective study supporting the role of dynamic adaptive strategies based on ctDNA monitoring in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Remon had no financial conflicts to disclose. Corresponding author Dr. Dziadziuszko disclosed honoraria for consultancy or lectures from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Timing of a switch to treatment from gefitinib to osimertinib based on molecular progression led to an earlier switch than timing based on conventional measures in a new study of 100 adults with epidermal growth factor (EGFR)–mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Previous studies have suggested that molecular progression of disease in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, as measured by sequential plasma EGFR T790M, may precede radiological progression, as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

However, the impact of these measures on timing of treatment changes and patient outcomes has not been examined, wrote Jordi Remon, MD, of Paris (France)–Saclay University and colleagues, in Annals of Oncology.

The European Organization for Research Treatment and Cancer Lung Cancer Group designed a phase 2 clinical trial known as APPLE to evaluate the use of sequential plasma EGFR T790M and determine the optimal sequencing for gefitinib and osimertinib in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

The researchers reported results from two randomized arms of the APPLE trial. In arm B, 52 patients received gefitinib until emergence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) EGFR T790M mutation, based on the cobas EGFR test v2 (a real-time PCR test), or progression of disease based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). In arm C, 51 patients received gefitinib until disease progression based on RECIST. Both arms then switched to osimertinib. Patients randomized to a third arm (arm A) received osimertinib upfront until progression of disease based on RECIST, and they were not included in the current study.

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) while receiving osimertinib at 18 months in patients who were originally randomized to gefitinib, then switched to osimertinib at the emergence of circulating tumor DNA. Secondary endpoints included PFS, overall response rate, overall survival, and brain PFS.

Patients entered the study between November 2017 and February 2020. A total of 75% and 65% of those in arms B and C, respectively, were female, approximately 65% had the mutation EGFR Del19, and approximately one-third had baseline brain metastases. In arm B, 17% of patients switched to osimertinib based on the emergence of ctDNA T790M mutation before progressive disease based on RECIST. The median time to molecular disease progression was 266 days.

More patients in arm B met the primary endpoint of PFS while receiving osimertinib at 18 months (67.2%) than in arm C (53.5%), after a median follow-up of 30 months.

As for secondary endpoints, the median PFS in the two arms was 22.0 months and 20.2 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 42.8 months in arm C and was not reached in arm B. The median brain PFS was 24.4 months for arm B and 21.4 months for arm C.

The benefits seen in the osimertinib patients may be due in part to the timing of the switch to correspond with molecular or radiological disease progression, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

In the future, more research is needed to determine whether molecular monitoring may impact patients’ outcomes, compared with monitoring based on radiological progression, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the rapid evolution in the treatment landscape of EGFR-mutant NSCLC, the researchers noted.

Osimertinib is currently considered the preferred first-line treatment by most physicians, they said. “The APPLE trial is the first prospective study supporting the role of dynamic adaptive strategies based on ctDNA monitoring in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Remon had no financial conflicts to disclose. Corresponding author Dr. Dziadziuszko disclosed honoraria for consultancy or lectures from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

“Don’t close the barn door after the horse is gone,” the old proverb goes. In other words, there’s no sense in trying to prevent something when it’s already too late.

In many ways and for many years, this saying has applied to providing local therapies to treat cancers that have metastasized to distant sites. I learned this lesson early on from my mentors and have relayed it to countless patients with advanced cancer over the past several decades.

But a growing body of evidence, alongside promising new therapies, highlights more and more exceptions to this long-held belief. Over my career, I have increasingly learned about the nuances of metastatic disease, specifically that metastasis represents a broad spectrum of indolent to extremely aggressive cancers.

This concept was outlined decades ago for oligometastatic disease and has since been studied in greater depth, and is even being applied in practice. Local therapy for colorectal cancer with limited liver-only metastases is now established as a path to potentially excellent long-term survival. And prospective randomized trials of local therapies for oligometastatic lung cancer or prostate cancer have also demonstrated improvements in clinical outcomes that should lead us to strongly consider integrating local therapy for appropriately selected patients.

In addition, early retrospective studies have provided a proof of principle that patients with solitary brain or adrenal metastases from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can do exceptionally well and even remain disease-free for many years after definitive local therapy to the primary tumor and oligometastatic disease. For example, a recent press release on the LUNAR trial reported an improvement in overall survival with tumor-treating fields (TTFs), a local therapy, compared with docetaxel as second-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.

That said, the selection process for who receives local therapy remains subjective. In practice, I see patients who fall well outside of conventional oligometastatic parameters but who are directed to local therapy, commonly when systemic therapy is considered futile or prohibitively toxic.

At the same time, however, I also see many patients who would be appropriate candidates for local therapy for oligometastatic disease for whom this strategy is not pursued, perhaps because some oncologists remain dubious about the value of local therapy in this setting. And although we await the full data from the LUNAR trial, I would expect TTFs to face challenges in broad adoption because it is a novel platform with cumbersome practical application, particularly outside of larger centers.

But beyond the potential for TTFs to change management of previously treated advanced NSCLC, I think the findings are more significant because they represent a step, perhaps even a quantum leap, in the role that local therapy could play in improving survival in a broad, unselected population with advanced disease. That is a far more meaningful prospect than conferring benefits in well-selected patients with a narrow subtype of lung cancer. It will be important to determine whether certain subgroups from the LUNAR trial are driving this overall survival benefit.

Local therapy may even have value in the advanced cancer setting beyond oligometastatic disease. That potential is being explored in the SABR-COMET-10 trial, which randomly assigned 159 patients with 4-10 metastatic lesions from various cancers to stereotactic ablative body radiation with standard systemic therapy or the latter alone. With overall survival as the primary endpoint, this study could further revise our understanding of the use of local therapy for treating patients whose cancer biology does not fit the definition of oligometastatic disease.

Does this evolving landscape mean that we were wrong to minimize the role of local therapy?

I don’t think so. The risk/benefit of local therapy today is predicated on two key factors that were absent a few decades ago. First, local therapies such as stereotactic ablative body radiation, minimally invasive surgery, and TTFs now offer disease control with far less attendant toxicity than conventional external beam radiation therapy or open surgery. Second, newer systemic therapies that include targeted therapies and immunotherapy confer remarkably greater disease control for far more patients than does conventional chemotherapy alone.

It is this combination of local therapy’s excellent therapeutic index applied against a background of far better systemic disease control that makes the interplay of local and systemic treatments a newly relevant, open question.

We have yet to see the details of several pivotal trials, but I feel that we should be prepared to question some of the historic dogma in our field to achieve better outcomes not just for selected, narrow subgroups but for a broader population with different types of metastatic cancer.
 

Dr. West is clinical associate professor, department of medical oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He disclosed ties with Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, and Spectrum. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

“Don’t close the barn door after the horse is gone,” the old proverb goes. In other words, there’s no sense in trying to prevent something when it’s already too late.

In many ways and for many years, this saying has applied to providing local therapies to treat cancers that have metastasized to distant sites. I learned this lesson early on from my mentors and have relayed it to countless patients with advanced cancer over the past several decades.

But a growing body of evidence, alongside promising new therapies, highlights more and more exceptions to this long-held belief. Over my career, I have increasingly learned about the nuances of metastatic disease, specifically that metastasis represents a broad spectrum of indolent to extremely aggressive cancers.

This concept was outlined decades ago for oligometastatic disease and has since been studied in greater depth, and is even being applied in practice. Local therapy for colorectal cancer with limited liver-only metastases is now established as a path to potentially excellent long-term survival. And prospective randomized trials of local therapies for oligometastatic lung cancer or prostate cancer have also demonstrated improvements in clinical outcomes that should lead us to strongly consider integrating local therapy for appropriately selected patients.

In addition, early retrospective studies have provided a proof of principle that patients with solitary brain or adrenal metastases from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can do exceptionally well and even remain disease-free for many years after definitive local therapy to the primary tumor and oligometastatic disease. For example, a recent press release on the LUNAR trial reported an improvement in overall survival with tumor-treating fields (TTFs), a local therapy, compared with docetaxel as second-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.

That said, the selection process for who receives local therapy remains subjective. In practice, I see patients who fall well outside of conventional oligometastatic parameters but who are directed to local therapy, commonly when systemic therapy is considered futile or prohibitively toxic.

At the same time, however, I also see many patients who would be appropriate candidates for local therapy for oligometastatic disease for whom this strategy is not pursued, perhaps because some oncologists remain dubious about the value of local therapy in this setting. And although we await the full data from the LUNAR trial, I would expect TTFs to face challenges in broad adoption because it is a novel platform with cumbersome practical application, particularly outside of larger centers.

But beyond the potential for TTFs to change management of previously treated advanced NSCLC, I think the findings are more significant because they represent a step, perhaps even a quantum leap, in the role that local therapy could play in improving survival in a broad, unselected population with advanced disease. That is a far more meaningful prospect than conferring benefits in well-selected patients with a narrow subtype of lung cancer. It will be important to determine whether certain subgroups from the LUNAR trial are driving this overall survival benefit.

Local therapy may even have value in the advanced cancer setting beyond oligometastatic disease. That potential is being explored in the SABR-COMET-10 trial, which randomly assigned 159 patients with 4-10 metastatic lesions from various cancers to stereotactic ablative body radiation with standard systemic therapy or the latter alone. With overall survival as the primary endpoint, this study could further revise our understanding of the use of local therapy for treating patients whose cancer biology does not fit the definition of oligometastatic disease.

Does this evolving landscape mean that we were wrong to minimize the role of local therapy?

I don’t think so. The risk/benefit of local therapy today is predicated on two key factors that were absent a few decades ago. First, local therapies such as stereotactic ablative body radiation, minimally invasive surgery, and TTFs now offer disease control with far less attendant toxicity than conventional external beam radiation therapy or open surgery. Second, newer systemic therapies that include targeted therapies and immunotherapy confer remarkably greater disease control for far more patients than does conventional chemotherapy alone.

It is this combination of local therapy’s excellent therapeutic index applied against a background of far better systemic disease control that makes the interplay of local and systemic treatments a newly relevant, open question.

We have yet to see the details of several pivotal trials, but I feel that we should be prepared to question some of the historic dogma in our field to achieve better outcomes not just for selected, narrow subgroups but for a broader population with different types of metastatic cancer.
 

Dr. West is clinical associate professor, department of medical oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He disclosed ties with Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, and Spectrum. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

“Don’t close the barn door after the horse is gone,” the old proverb goes. In other words, there’s no sense in trying to prevent something when it’s already too late.

In many ways and for many years, this saying has applied to providing local therapies to treat cancers that have metastasized to distant sites. I learned this lesson early on from my mentors and have relayed it to countless patients with advanced cancer over the past several decades.

But a growing body of evidence, alongside promising new therapies, highlights more and more exceptions to this long-held belief. Over my career, I have increasingly learned about the nuances of metastatic disease, specifically that metastasis represents a broad spectrum of indolent to extremely aggressive cancers.

This concept was outlined decades ago for oligometastatic disease and has since been studied in greater depth, and is even being applied in practice. Local therapy for colorectal cancer with limited liver-only metastases is now established as a path to potentially excellent long-term survival. And prospective randomized trials of local therapies for oligometastatic lung cancer or prostate cancer have also demonstrated improvements in clinical outcomes that should lead us to strongly consider integrating local therapy for appropriately selected patients.

In addition, early retrospective studies have provided a proof of principle that patients with solitary brain or adrenal metastases from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can do exceptionally well and even remain disease-free for many years after definitive local therapy to the primary tumor and oligometastatic disease. For example, a recent press release on the LUNAR trial reported an improvement in overall survival with tumor-treating fields (TTFs), a local therapy, compared with docetaxel as second-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.

That said, the selection process for who receives local therapy remains subjective. In practice, I see patients who fall well outside of conventional oligometastatic parameters but who are directed to local therapy, commonly when systemic therapy is considered futile or prohibitively toxic.

At the same time, however, I also see many patients who would be appropriate candidates for local therapy for oligometastatic disease for whom this strategy is not pursued, perhaps because some oncologists remain dubious about the value of local therapy in this setting. And although we await the full data from the LUNAR trial, I would expect TTFs to face challenges in broad adoption because it is a novel platform with cumbersome practical application, particularly outside of larger centers.

But beyond the potential for TTFs to change management of previously treated advanced NSCLC, I think the findings are more significant because they represent a step, perhaps even a quantum leap, in the role that local therapy could play in improving survival in a broad, unselected population with advanced disease. That is a far more meaningful prospect than conferring benefits in well-selected patients with a narrow subtype of lung cancer. It will be important to determine whether certain subgroups from the LUNAR trial are driving this overall survival benefit.

Local therapy may even have value in the advanced cancer setting beyond oligometastatic disease. That potential is being explored in the SABR-COMET-10 trial, which randomly assigned 159 patients with 4-10 metastatic lesions from various cancers to stereotactic ablative body radiation with standard systemic therapy or the latter alone. With overall survival as the primary endpoint, this study could further revise our understanding of the use of local therapy for treating patients whose cancer biology does not fit the definition of oligometastatic disease.

Does this evolving landscape mean that we were wrong to minimize the role of local therapy?

I don’t think so. The risk/benefit of local therapy today is predicated on two key factors that were absent a few decades ago. First, local therapies such as stereotactic ablative body radiation, minimally invasive surgery, and TTFs now offer disease control with far less attendant toxicity than conventional external beam radiation therapy or open surgery. Second, newer systemic therapies that include targeted therapies and immunotherapy confer remarkably greater disease control for far more patients than does conventional chemotherapy alone.

It is this combination of local therapy’s excellent therapeutic index applied against a background of far better systemic disease control that makes the interplay of local and systemic treatments a newly relevant, open question.

We have yet to see the details of several pivotal trials, but I feel that we should be prepared to question some of the historic dogma in our field to achieve better outcomes not just for selected, narrow subgroups but for a broader population with different types of metastatic cancer.
 

Dr. West is clinical associate professor, department of medical oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He disclosed ties with Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, and Spectrum. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.

“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.

“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.

“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.

“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”

“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”

Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”

She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
 

Dose/response relationship

The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.

The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.

During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.

The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.

“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.

These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.

“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
 

Keeping dose to a minimum

The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.

“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.

“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”

The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.

“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.

“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.

“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.

“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”

“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”

Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”

She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
 

Dose/response relationship

The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.

The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.

During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.

The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.

“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.

These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.

“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
 

Keeping dose to a minimum

The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.

“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.

“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”

The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.

“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.

“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.

“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.

“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”

“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”

Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”

She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
 

Dose/response relationship

The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.

The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.

During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.

The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.

“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.

These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.

“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
 

Keeping dose to a minimum

The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.

“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.

“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”

The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Because of the high out-of-pocket costs of new-to-market neurologic drugs that are of similar benefit as older agents, only a small percentage of patients with neurologic disorders have access to these cutting-edge medications, new research shows.

“Our study of people with neurologic conditions found that fewer than 20% were being treated with new medications,” study author Brian C. Callaghan, MD, with University of Michigan Health in Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

“For new, high-cost medications that have similar effectiveness to older drugs, limited use is likely appropriate. However, future studies are needed to look into whether the high costs are barriers to those new medications that can really make a difference for people living with neurologic disease,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Most expensive drugs

Using insurance claims data, the investigators compared the utilization and costs of new-to-market drugs from 2014 to 2018 with those for existing guideline-supported medications for treating 11 neurologic conditions.

The new drugs included:

• erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for migraine.
• ocrelizumab and peginterferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (MS).
• pimavanserin and safinamide for Parkinson’s disease.
• droxidopa for orthostatic hypertension.
• eculizumab for myasthenia gravis (MG).
• edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
• deutetrabenazine and valbenazine for Huntington’s disease and tardive dyskinesia.
• patisiran and inotersen for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR).
• eteplirsen and deflazacort for Duchenne disease.
• nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

Utilization of new drugs was modest – they accounted for one in five prescriptions for every condition except tardive dyskinesia (32% for valbenazine), the researchers noted.

Mean out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for the new medications, although there was large variability among individual drugs.

The two most expensive drugs were edaravone, for ALS, with a mean out-of-pocket cost of $713 for a 30-day supply, and eculizumab, for MG, which costs $91 per month.

“For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs were highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications,” the authors reported.

They noted that potential reasons for low utilization of newer agents include delay in provider uptake and prescriber and/or patient avoidance because of high cost.

Given that most of the new neurologic agents offer little advantage compared with existing treatments – exceptions being new drugs for SMA and ATTR – drug costs should be a key consideration in prescribing decisions, Dr. Callaghan and colleagues concluded.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up time was short for some of the recently approved medications. Another limitation is that the number of people in the study who had rare diseases was small.
 

Revolution in neurotherapeutics

“We are living in a time when new treatments bring hope to people with neurologic diseases and disorders,” Orly Avitzur, MD, president of the American Academy of Neurology, said in a statement.

“However, even existing prescription medication can be expensive and drug prices continue to rise. In order for neurologists to provide people with the highest quality care, it is imperative that new drugs are accessible and affordable to the people who need them,” Dr. Avitzur added.

Writing in a linked editorial, A. Gordon Smith, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said there is a revolution in neurotherapeutics, with particularly robust growth in new drug approvals for orphan diseases (those affecting < 200,000 Americans).

“This study adds to a growing literature indicating rising drug prices are a threat to the health care system. No matter how effective a disease-modifying therapy may be, if a patient cannot afford the cost, it doesn’t work,” Dr. Smith wrote.

He added that neurologists must be “diligent in assessing for financial toxicity and appropriately tailor individual treatment recommendations. We must insist on development of point-of-care tools to accurately estimate each patient’s potential financial toxicity including RTBT [real-time benefit tools].

“Neurologists’ primary obligation is to the individual patient, but we are also compelled to support access to high-quality care for all people, which requires advocacy for appropriate policy reforms to ensure value based and fair drug pricing and treatment success,” Dr. Smith added.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology Health Services Research Subcommittee. Dr. Callaghan consults for a PCORI grant, DynaMed, receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology, and performs medical/legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Because of the high out-of-pocket costs of new-to-market neurologic drugs that are of similar benefit as older agents, only a small percentage of patients with neurologic disorders have access to these cutting-edge medications, new research shows.

“Our study of people with neurologic conditions found that fewer than 20% were being treated with new medications,” study author Brian C. Callaghan, MD, with University of Michigan Health in Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

“For new, high-cost medications that have similar effectiveness to older drugs, limited use is likely appropriate. However, future studies are needed to look into whether the high costs are barriers to those new medications that can really make a difference for people living with neurologic disease,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Most expensive drugs

Using insurance claims data, the investigators compared the utilization and costs of new-to-market drugs from 2014 to 2018 with those for existing guideline-supported medications for treating 11 neurologic conditions.

The new drugs included:

• erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for migraine.
• ocrelizumab and peginterferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (MS).
• pimavanserin and safinamide for Parkinson’s disease.
• droxidopa for orthostatic hypertension.
• eculizumab for myasthenia gravis (MG).
• edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
• deutetrabenazine and valbenazine for Huntington’s disease and tardive dyskinesia.
• patisiran and inotersen for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR).
• eteplirsen and deflazacort for Duchenne disease.
• nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

Utilization of new drugs was modest – they accounted for one in five prescriptions for every condition except tardive dyskinesia (32% for valbenazine), the researchers noted.

Mean out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for the new medications, although there was large variability among individual drugs.

The two most expensive drugs were edaravone, for ALS, with a mean out-of-pocket cost of $713 for a 30-day supply, and eculizumab, for MG, which costs $91 per month.

“For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs were highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications,” the authors reported.

They noted that potential reasons for low utilization of newer agents include delay in provider uptake and prescriber and/or patient avoidance because of high cost.

Given that most of the new neurologic agents offer little advantage compared with existing treatments – exceptions being new drugs for SMA and ATTR – drug costs should be a key consideration in prescribing decisions, Dr. Callaghan and colleagues concluded.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up time was short for some of the recently approved medications. Another limitation is that the number of people in the study who had rare diseases was small.
 

Revolution in neurotherapeutics

“We are living in a time when new treatments bring hope to people with neurologic diseases and disorders,” Orly Avitzur, MD, president of the American Academy of Neurology, said in a statement.

“However, even existing prescription medication can be expensive and drug prices continue to rise. In order for neurologists to provide people with the highest quality care, it is imperative that new drugs are accessible and affordable to the people who need them,” Dr. Avitzur added.

Writing in a linked editorial, A. Gordon Smith, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said there is a revolution in neurotherapeutics, with particularly robust growth in new drug approvals for orphan diseases (those affecting < 200,000 Americans).

“This study adds to a growing literature indicating rising drug prices are a threat to the health care system. No matter how effective a disease-modifying therapy may be, if a patient cannot afford the cost, it doesn’t work,” Dr. Smith wrote.

He added that neurologists must be “diligent in assessing for financial toxicity and appropriately tailor individual treatment recommendations. We must insist on development of point-of-care tools to accurately estimate each patient’s potential financial toxicity including RTBT [real-time benefit tools].

“Neurologists’ primary obligation is to the individual patient, but we are also compelled to support access to high-quality care for all people, which requires advocacy for appropriate policy reforms to ensure value based and fair drug pricing and treatment success,” Dr. Smith added.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology Health Services Research Subcommittee. Dr. Callaghan consults for a PCORI grant, DynaMed, receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology, and performs medical/legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Because of the high out-of-pocket costs of new-to-market neurologic drugs that are of similar benefit as older agents, only a small percentage of patients with neurologic disorders have access to these cutting-edge medications, new research shows.

“Our study of people with neurologic conditions found that fewer than 20% were being treated with new medications,” study author Brian C. Callaghan, MD, with University of Michigan Health in Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

“For new, high-cost medications that have similar effectiveness to older drugs, limited use is likely appropriate. However, future studies are needed to look into whether the high costs are barriers to those new medications that can really make a difference for people living with neurologic disease,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Most expensive drugs

Using insurance claims data, the investigators compared the utilization and costs of new-to-market drugs from 2014 to 2018 with those for existing guideline-supported medications for treating 11 neurologic conditions.

The new drugs included:

• erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for migraine.
• ocrelizumab and peginterferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (MS).
• pimavanserin and safinamide for Parkinson’s disease.
• droxidopa for orthostatic hypertension.
• eculizumab for myasthenia gravis (MG).
• edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
• deutetrabenazine and valbenazine for Huntington’s disease and tardive dyskinesia.
• patisiran and inotersen for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR).
• eteplirsen and deflazacort for Duchenne disease.
• nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

Utilization of new drugs was modest – they accounted for one in five prescriptions for every condition except tardive dyskinesia (32% for valbenazine), the researchers noted.

Mean out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for the new medications, although there was large variability among individual drugs.

The two most expensive drugs were edaravone, for ALS, with a mean out-of-pocket cost of $713 for a 30-day supply, and eculizumab, for MG, which costs $91 per month.

“For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs were highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications,” the authors reported.

They noted that potential reasons for low utilization of newer agents include delay in provider uptake and prescriber and/or patient avoidance because of high cost.

Given that most of the new neurologic agents offer little advantage compared with existing treatments – exceptions being new drugs for SMA and ATTR – drug costs should be a key consideration in prescribing decisions, Dr. Callaghan and colleagues concluded.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up time was short for some of the recently approved medications. Another limitation is that the number of people in the study who had rare diseases was small.
 

Revolution in neurotherapeutics

“We are living in a time when new treatments bring hope to people with neurologic diseases and disorders,” Orly Avitzur, MD, president of the American Academy of Neurology, said in a statement.

“However, even existing prescription medication can be expensive and drug prices continue to rise. In order for neurologists to provide people with the highest quality care, it is imperative that new drugs are accessible and affordable to the people who need them,” Dr. Avitzur added.

Writing in a linked editorial, A. Gordon Smith, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said there is a revolution in neurotherapeutics, with particularly robust growth in new drug approvals for orphan diseases (those affecting < 200,000 Americans).

“This study adds to a growing literature indicating rising drug prices are a threat to the health care system. No matter how effective a disease-modifying therapy may be, if a patient cannot afford the cost, it doesn’t work,” Dr. Smith wrote.

He added that neurologists must be “diligent in assessing for financial toxicity and appropriately tailor individual treatment recommendations. We must insist on development of point-of-care tools to accurately estimate each patient’s potential financial toxicity including RTBT [real-time benefit tools].

“Neurologists’ primary obligation is to the individual patient, but we are also compelled to support access to high-quality care for all people, which requires advocacy for appropriate policy reforms to ensure value based and fair drug pricing and treatment success,” Dr. Smith added.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology Health Services Research Subcommittee. Dr. Callaghan consults for a PCORI grant, DynaMed, receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology, and performs medical/legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A third dose of coronavirus booster vaccine is effective in reducing death and hospitalization among people with cancer, though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.

People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.

The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.

Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.

The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.

“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.

Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.

The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.

The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).

Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).

Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).

Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.

A third dose of coronavirus booster vaccine is effective in reducing death and hospitalization among people with cancer, though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.

People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.

The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.

Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.

The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.

“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.

Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.

The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.

The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).

Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).

Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).

Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.

A third dose of coronavirus booster vaccine is effective in reducing death and hospitalization among people with cancer, though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.

People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.

The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.

Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.

The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.

“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.

Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.

The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.

The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).

Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).

Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).

Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.

Every year, around 7,000 people in Germany develop a brain tumor, and around half of those cases involve a glioblastoma, a particularly aggressive form of the disease. Glioblastomas are incurable, but advances are being made in both diagnostics and therapy. Scientists from the Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) in Heidelberg have discovered a fundamentally new way in which glioblastomas spread within the brain.

This news organization spoke to Wolfgang Wick, MD, medical director of the neurologic clinic at UKHD, about how glioblastomas are treated; the role that vaccinations, recombinant proteins, and parvoviruses play; and what therapeutic approaches might be derived from the discovery of this method by which glioblastomas spread.

Question: Glioblastomas spread through the brain like a fungal network. So how would a glioblastoma currently be treated? The tumor can only be partially removed through surgery.

Answer: Nevertheless, glioblastoma would be operated on. This would have a significant effect. Relieving the strain of the main tumor mass, without generating a new deficit, is prognostically very good for the patient concerned. However, surgery on glioblastoma is never curative.

The reason a cure is not possible is down to the special form and spread of the glioblastoma. Nevertheless, an operation helps. This seems to be because removing the main tumor mass maybe has a positive immunological effect. But it may also be connected to the tumor’s network communication. The surgical intervention stimulates the network by increasing resistance.

If the main tumor mass is decreased through a surgical procedure, this results in an at least temporarily improved starting position for the patient until the mass regenerates. This could also be connected to the fact that tumor communication is not unregulated but is rather in accordance with a certain hierarchy and order, which requires a certain structure and mass.

The other aspect is that support can be requested via this communication. You can imagine that a cell connected to another cell via a conduit receives help from this other cell in the form of organelles by exchanging ions and that, for example, stress or toxicity can be much better balanced out in large networks than in small networks. That means that external attacks, such as a surgical intervention, can be much better balanced by a well-organized network than by isolated cells.
 

Resistance to chemotherapy

Q: How do irradiation and chemotherapy rank in the treatment of glioblastomas?

A: Irradiation is another therapeutic approach. It causes cells to be stuck in the growth phase of the cell cycle. The cells are not killed through radiation, but they are practically halted. And this arrest of the cell cycle is often sufficient to help people with glioblastomas for a very long time. But the same is true for irradiation as for surgery. This deep network of cells cannot be addressed.

Attempts have been made in the past to reduce the radiation dose to the extent that the brain is no longer damaged by it, but this low dose was then not sufficient to exert any control. If you want to control the tumor, the dose must be high and the volume must be correspondingly low, since there is a clear limit.

Every patient is offered alkylating chemotherapy. At the moment, just one substance is used here in the primary therapy: temozolomide. The problem with this is that two-thirds of tumors in all cells exhibit a resistance to this alkylating chemotherapy, which means that the efficacy of this therapy is highly limited in two-thirds of patients.

In the one-third of patients in whom this resistance is not present, the chemotherapy works fairly well. But even then, it is unfortunately only a matter of time until there is a relapse or disease progression. In my practice, this has always been the case, but there are people who have been living with this disease for 20 years now. There seem to be tumor cells that calmly and silently survive this phase of chemotherapy and then restart the cell cycle at some point.

Q: What do you think of alternating electric fields as a therapy option?

A: Therapy with alternating electric fields is currently being used and offered to patients. This means that patients who have survived well through radiochemotherapy should also be offered treatment with alternating electric fields.

However, what happens in this process is not as well understood as with other therapies. It is assumed that the cell cycle, i.e., cell division, is altered by disrupting the mitotic spindle. But you can imagine, and this is now speculation, but quite sound speculation I believe, that alternating electric fields also cause a certain amount of confusion in the previously described networks. But this still needs to be investigated in more detail.

It is not implausible. We know that such alternating electric fields disturb the organization of cell organelles. And we also know that for this communication, we need fairly good order and also organization. This would definitely be a starting point on the way to understanding why this therapy potentially shows a certain effect in some patients.
 

Nerve cell precursors

Q: Scientists from the UKHD and the DKFZ have discovered a new glioblastoma spreading strategy and have learned that the tumor cells imitate the properties and movement patterns of nerve cells. They are labeling the results a “milestone in the field of cancer neuroscience.” Could you explain a bit more?

A: Glioblastoma does not grow on its own as a solid mass, but instead, the entire brain is affected by the disease. The question of how the tumor’s individual cells move the main tumor mass from afar, how they get there, how they continue to be supplied, and what their interaction partners are – an entirely new light has been shed on all of this in our work.

The development of tumor cell mobility has been recognized as a remnant of brain development. The tumor cells have retained properties that the precursor cells for nervous-system development require for an organized nervous system to emerge from just a few cells. This means that the tumor cells copy or eventually retain properties of the nerve-cell precursors that, unlike mature nerve cells, are mobile to a fairly high degree.

Mobility here means that it can advance along a network, despite said network being very densely packed. This also means that certain processes, such as releasing and then continuing to move again, must function and that the communication regarding the original disease must be maintained.

First, we understand what the different glioblastoma cell types do, which molecular properties are associated with which behaviors, and which cell type (namely the swarming cells) is responsible for the invasive tumor growth. In contrast, the network-forming cell type, which only develops from these, is responsible for the resistance.
 

Interrupting communication

Q: Which starting points for new therapies do you see?

A: In terms of new therapies, these movement phenomena are one good starting point. The other starting point – I find this one much more interesting – is that the programming steps that these tumor cells use [are] no longer needed. This is because our mature nervous system no longer requires this program, which was necessary for the mobility of cells in development.

Our central nervous system exhibits little cell movement. This is to do with programs of nervous-system development that are switched off in the mature nervous system. But they are then reactivated or remain active in the tumor cells. This process reveals potential starting points for therapy.

Addressing the movement of cells, that has been investigated for the last 20 years, but it seems to have an extraordinarily high number of side effects, because these movement mechanisms are also important for other, healthy cells in the body. For example, digestive mechanisms and other proliferation mechanisms, on mucous membranes, in the blood system, in the bone marrow, are then affected and no longer function.

There is another possible approach: the more-or-less specific interaction between the nerve cells and the tumor cells also offers starting points for therapies, from our point of view. The key word is epilepsy treatment. We know that people with brain tumors suffer badly, or worse than usual, from epileptic seizures. This was often regarded purely as a pressure problem. There is a disruptive element in the brain, and this causes the electrical activity in the brain to become disorganized. For some people, this can lead to seizures in certain situations.

The communication between tumor cells and nerve cells takes place via transmission substances, e.g., through the neurotransmitter glutamate. Now you can consider whether a “surplus” of communication, such as an excessively strong stimulus, can trigger epileptic seizures.

In this work, we demonstrate that by interrupting this communication, we can also prevent the movement of these cells and the growth, the proliferation, of these cells.

Q: What is the significance of parvoviruses for therapy?

A: The major topic for cancer is immunotherapy. And one option for performing immunotherapies lies with viruses. Parvoviruses are a plausible therapy for proliferating cells.

Parvoviruses are usually administered locally. This means that a surgical cavity is infected with the viruses and the tumor cells that remain after an operation will then hopefully be killed off by these viruses.

This is the first step and the immediate effect of virus therapy. The attempt is made to kill off cells in the same way as with a medication. The advantage of viruses is the high specificity, i.e., only dividing cells will be attacked. In addition, parvoviruses are so small that they can also spread well and circulate through the brain.

The second reason for immunotherapy is that when killing off cells with viruses, antigens are often released that otherwise would not be, depending on the virus. But it’s the case with parvoviruses. They integrate with the virus’s genetic material. When cells rupture, certain proteins are then revealed, hybrids of viruses and the human genome, and these are attractive to the immune system.

There is a whole range of studies on this subject. However, there are currently no randomized studies that directly compare the therapies. But the expectation is that the use of parvoviruses could be a good addition to therapy.

One limitation that should be mentioned is that the use of viruses may be beneficial for some patients, but it will not have an effect in every patient. What is exciting about parvoviruses is that these viruses can be injected via the bloodstream and still achieve a good effect in the brain.
 

Protein APG101

Q: How relevant is the recombinant protein APG101 to therapy?

A: APG101 is a protein that simulates the cell-death receptor CD95 and binds with a stable antibody fragment. By doing so, it blocks the signaling pathway between CD95 ligand and receptor. The interaction between the CD95 ligand and the CD95 receptor activates an intracellular signaling pathway, which in turn stimulates the invasive growth and migration of tumor cells.

APG101 blocks the CD95 ligand and thereby prevents the activation of the CD95 signaling pathway, which leads to a reduction in the invasive cell growth and migration.

Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is a system we have used throughout our evolution to kill off the cell components we no longer need. During tumor development, this system is perverted, so to speak. Here, the stimulation of this system does not actually lead to cell death but rather to cell movement (i.e., to cell mobility). And in principle, APG101 blocks this mobility.

To date, I only know of three studies in which the medication has been used for tumors. One study was published 8 years ago. We demonstrated that we can achieve a relatively good effect with APG101 in connection with repeat irradiation, compared with repeat irradiation alone. We consider this effect to most likely be due to this influence on cell mobility.

There is a study on primary therapy: a four-arm study by the Neuro-Oncological Working Group. The results are still not available, however. In addition, a study on primary therapy with APG101 is currently being conducted in China. It is investigating whether the mechanism of action influences mobility. Whether it will be pushed through as therapy remains to be seen.
 

Vaccinations and antigens

Q: Vaccinations are of course a part of immunotherapy. What is their status?

A: We are looking at the IDH1 protein, which is present in mutated form in a group of brain tumors, as a very good target for a vaccine. The reason is that the protein is present in its mutated form in every cell of the tumor but not in healthy cells. That is a prerequisite for immunotherapy.

We started a study with peptides a few years ago. These peptides are injected under the skin on the stomach and leg. They cause an immune response systemically and in the brain tumor. This immune response may cause an inflammatory reaction (we can demonstrate this inflammatory reaction). And in this noncontrolled study, the approach was successful, at least compared to historical controls. There is no randomized study with treatment-naive control patients.

However, we are cautious because we know that peptide, unlike CAR T cells or RNA-based vaccines, for example, only triggers a relatively small immune response in many patients. The scale of the immune response is important, rather than the specificity. The scale is probably not large enough in most patients for a long-term effect to be expected.

But there are exceptions. Patients we vaccinated many years ago still have a very remarkable immune status. But we also have patients in whom an immune status cannot even be seen anymore, after just a short period of time.

Therefore, our aim is to perform the immune strategy with more effective, stronger measures – not more specific, but stronger. Unfortunately, it is often the case with glioblastomas that there is not a single antigen that can be vaccinated against. Instead, a relatively large cocktail is needed, which unfortunately also often varies from patient to patient. The conditions are difficult.

Q: You mentioned that glioblastomas can be classified into subgroups. Does this improve the prognosis?

A: Yes, in certain subgroups the prognosis improves. That is the case with those usually very small groups that are molecularly well defined. I believe that by better understanding the individual groups, we have succeeded in making major progress in those groups. But where there is light, there is also shadow. We know that there are many groups with which we have not achieved a great deal.

Fundamental research leads to a better understanding, and the next step in this is to be able to adapt the therapy. Instead of it being one therapy for everyone, it will become a part of various differing therapies for these quite different groups. We are making a lot of progress with individual groups. But unfortunately, we have not come quite as far as we want with many patients.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Every year, around 7,000 people in Germany develop a brain tumor, and around half of those cases involve a glioblastoma, a particularly aggressive form of the disease. Glioblastomas are incurable, but advances are being made in both diagnostics and therapy. Scientists from the Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) in Heidelberg have discovered a fundamentally new way in which glioblastomas spread within the brain.

This news organization spoke to Wolfgang Wick, MD, medical director of the neurologic clinic at UKHD, about how glioblastomas are treated; the role that vaccinations, recombinant proteins, and parvoviruses play; and what therapeutic approaches might be derived from the discovery of this method by which glioblastomas spread.

Question: Glioblastomas spread through the brain like a fungal network. So how would a glioblastoma currently be treated? The tumor can only be partially removed through surgery.

Answer: Nevertheless, glioblastoma would be operated on. This would have a significant effect. Relieving the strain of the main tumor mass, without generating a new deficit, is prognostically very good for the patient concerned. However, surgery on glioblastoma is never curative.

The reason a cure is not possible is down to the special form and spread of the glioblastoma. Nevertheless, an operation helps. This seems to be because removing the main tumor mass maybe has a positive immunological effect. But it may also be connected to the tumor’s network communication. The surgical intervention stimulates the network by increasing resistance.

If the main tumor mass is decreased through a surgical procedure, this results in an at least temporarily improved starting position for the patient until the mass regenerates. This could also be connected to the fact that tumor communication is not unregulated but is rather in accordance with a certain hierarchy and order, which requires a certain structure and mass.

The other aspect is that support can be requested via this communication. You can imagine that a cell connected to another cell via a conduit receives help from this other cell in the form of organelles by exchanging ions and that, for example, stress or toxicity can be much better balanced out in large networks than in small networks. That means that external attacks, such as a surgical intervention, can be much better balanced by a well-organized network than by isolated cells.
 

Resistance to chemotherapy

Q: How do irradiation and chemotherapy rank in the treatment of glioblastomas?

A: Irradiation is another therapeutic approach. It causes cells to be stuck in the growth phase of the cell cycle. The cells are not killed through radiation, but they are practically halted. And this arrest of the cell cycle is often sufficient to help people with glioblastomas for a very long time. But the same is true for irradiation as for surgery. This deep network of cells cannot be addressed.

Attempts have been made in the past to reduce the radiation dose to the extent that the brain is no longer damaged by it, but this low dose was then not sufficient to exert any control. If you want to control the tumor, the dose must be high and the volume must be correspondingly low, since there is a clear limit.

Every patient is offered alkylating chemotherapy. At the moment, just one substance is used here in the primary therapy: temozolomide. The problem with this is that two-thirds of tumors in all cells exhibit a resistance to this alkylating chemotherapy, which means that the efficacy of this therapy is highly limited in two-thirds of patients.

In the one-third of patients in whom this resistance is not present, the chemotherapy works fairly well. But even then, it is unfortunately only a matter of time until there is a relapse or disease progression. In my practice, this has always been the case, but there are people who have been living with this disease for 20 years now. There seem to be tumor cells that calmly and silently survive this phase of chemotherapy and then restart the cell cycle at some point.

Q: What do you think of alternating electric fields as a therapy option?

A: Therapy with alternating electric fields is currently being used and offered to patients. This means that patients who have survived well through radiochemotherapy should also be offered treatment with alternating electric fields.

However, what happens in this process is not as well understood as with other therapies. It is assumed that the cell cycle, i.e., cell division, is altered by disrupting the mitotic spindle. But you can imagine, and this is now speculation, but quite sound speculation I believe, that alternating electric fields also cause a certain amount of confusion in the previously described networks. But this still needs to be investigated in more detail.

It is not implausible. We know that such alternating electric fields disturb the organization of cell organelles. And we also know that for this communication, we need fairly good order and also organization. This would definitely be a starting point on the way to understanding why this therapy potentially shows a certain effect in some patients.
 

Nerve cell precursors

Q: Scientists from the UKHD and the DKFZ have discovered a new glioblastoma spreading strategy and have learned that the tumor cells imitate the properties and movement patterns of nerve cells. They are labeling the results a “milestone in the field of cancer neuroscience.” Could you explain a bit more?

A: Glioblastoma does not grow on its own as a solid mass, but instead, the entire brain is affected by the disease. The question of how the tumor’s individual cells move the main tumor mass from afar, how they get there, how they continue to be supplied, and what their interaction partners are – an entirely new light has been shed on all of this in our work.

The development of tumor cell mobility has been recognized as a remnant of brain development. The tumor cells have retained properties that the precursor cells for nervous-system development require for an organized nervous system to emerge from just a few cells. This means that the tumor cells copy or eventually retain properties of the nerve-cell precursors that, unlike mature nerve cells, are mobile to a fairly high degree.

Mobility here means that it can advance along a network, despite said network being very densely packed. This also means that certain processes, such as releasing and then continuing to move again, must function and that the communication regarding the original disease must be maintained.

First, we understand what the different glioblastoma cell types do, which molecular properties are associated with which behaviors, and which cell type (namely the swarming cells) is responsible for the invasive tumor growth. In contrast, the network-forming cell type, which only develops from these, is responsible for the resistance.
 

Interrupting communication

Q: Which starting points for new therapies do you see?

A: In terms of new therapies, these movement phenomena are one good starting point. The other starting point – I find this one much more interesting – is that the programming steps that these tumor cells use [are] no longer needed. This is because our mature nervous system no longer requires this program, which was necessary for the mobility of cells in development.

Our central nervous system exhibits little cell movement. This is to do with programs of nervous-system development that are switched off in the mature nervous system. But they are then reactivated or remain active in the tumor cells. This process reveals potential starting points for therapy.

Addressing the movement of cells, that has been investigated for the last 20 years, but it seems to have an extraordinarily high number of side effects, because these movement mechanisms are also important for other, healthy cells in the body. For example, digestive mechanisms and other proliferation mechanisms, on mucous membranes, in the blood system, in the bone marrow, are then affected and no longer function.

There is another possible approach: the more-or-less specific interaction between the nerve cells and the tumor cells also offers starting points for therapies, from our point of view. The key word is epilepsy treatment. We know that people with brain tumors suffer badly, or worse than usual, from epileptic seizures. This was often regarded purely as a pressure problem. There is a disruptive element in the brain, and this causes the electrical activity in the brain to become disorganized. For some people, this can lead to seizures in certain situations.

The communication between tumor cells and nerve cells takes place via transmission substances, e.g., through the neurotransmitter glutamate. Now you can consider whether a “surplus” of communication, such as an excessively strong stimulus, can trigger epileptic seizures.

In this work, we demonstrate that by interrupting this communication, we can also prevent the movement of these cells and the growth, the proliferation, of these cells.

Q: What is the significance of parvoviruses for therapy?

A: The major topic for cancer is immunotherapy. And one option for performing immunotherapies lies with viruses. Parvoviruses are a plausible therapy for proliferating cells.

Parvoviruses are usually administered locally. This means that a surgical cavity is infected with the viruses and the tumor cells that remain after an operation will then hopefully be killed off by these viruses.

This is the first step and the immediate effect of virus therapy. The attempt is made to kill off cells in the same way as with a medication. The advantage of viruses is the high specificity, i.e., only dividing cells will be attacked. In addition, parvoviruses are so small that they can also spread well and circulate through the brain.

The second reason for immunotherapy is that when killing off cells with viruses, antigens are often released that otherwise would not be, depending on the virus. But it’s the case with parvoviruses. They integrate with the virus’s genetic material. When cells rupture, certain proteins are then revealed, hybrids of viruses and the human genome, and these are attractive to the immune system.

There is a whole range of studies on this subject. However, there are currently no randomized studies that directly compare the therapies. But the expectation is that the use of parvoviruses could be a good addition to therapy.

One limitation that should be mentioned is that the use of viruses may be beneficial for some patients, but it will not have an effect in every patient. What is exciting about parvoviruses is that these viruses can be injected via the bloodstream and still achieve a good effect in the brain.
 

Protein APG101

Q: How relevant is the recombinant protein APG101 to therapy?

A: APG101 is a protein that simulates the cell-death receptor CD95 and binds with a stable antibody fragment. By doing so, it blocks the signaling pathway between CD95 ligand and receptor. The interaction between the CD95 ligand and the CD95 receptor activates an intracellular signaling pathway, which in turn stimulates the invasive growth and migration of tumor cells.

APG101 blocks the CD95 ligand and thereby prevents the activation of the CD95 signaling pathway, which leads to a reduction in the invasive cell growth and migration.

Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is a system we have used throughout our evolution to kill off the cell components we no longer need. During tumor development, this system is perverted, so to speak. Here, the stimulation of this system does not actually lead to cell death but rather to cell movement (i.e., to cell mobility). And in principle, APG101 blocks this mobility.

To date, I only know of three studies in which the medication has been used for tumors. One study was published 8 years ago. We demonstrated that we can achieve a relatively good effect with APG101 in connection with repeat irradiation, compared with repeat irradiation alone. We consider this effect to most likely be due to this influence on cell mobility.

There is a study on primary therapy: a four-arm study by the Neuro-Oncological Working Group. The results are still not available, however. In addition, a study on primary therapy with APG101 is currently being conducted in China. It is investigating whether the mechanism of action influences mobility. Whether it will be pushed through as therapy remains to be seen.
 

Vaccinations and antigens

Q: Vaccinations are of course a part of immunotherapy. What is their status?

A: We are looking at the IDH1 protein, which is present in mutated form in a group of brain tumors, as a very good target for a vaccine. The reason is that the protein is present in its mutated form in every cell of the tumor but not in healthy cells. That is a prerequisite for immunotherapy.

We started a study with peptides a few years ago. These peptides are injected under the skin on the stomach and leg. They cause an immune response systemically and in the brain tumor. This immune response may cause an inflammatory reaction (we can demonstrate this inflammatory reaction). And in this noncontrolled study, the approach was successful, at least compared to historical controls. There is no randomized study with treatment-naive control patients.

However, we are cautious because we know that peptide, unlike CAR T cells or RNA-based vaccines, for example, only triggers a relatively small immune response in many patients. The scale of the immune response is important, rather than the specificity. The scale is probably not large enough in most patients for a long-term effect to be expected.

But there are exceptions. Patients we vaccinated many years ago still have a very remarkable immune status. But we also have patients in whom an immune status cannot even be seen anymore, after just a short period of time.

Therefore, our aim is to perform the immune strategy with more effective, stronger measures – not more specific, but stronger. Unfortunately, it is often the case with glioblastomas that there is not a single antigen that can be vaccinated against. Instead, a relatively large cocktail is needed, which unfortunately also often varies from patient to patient. The conditions are difficult.

Q: You mentioned that glioblastomas can be classified into subgroups. Does this improve the prognosis?

A: Yes, in certain subgroups the prognosis improves. That is the case with those usually very small groups that are molecularly well defined. I believe that by better understanding the individual groups, we have succeeded in making major progress in those groups. But where there is light, there is also shadow. We know that there are many groups with which we have not achieved a great deal.

Fundamental research leads to a better understanding, and the next step in this is to be able to adapt the therapy. Instead of it being one therapy for everyone, it will become a part of various differing therapies for these quite different groups. We are making a lot of progress with individual groups. But unfortunately, we have not come quite as far as we want with many patients.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Every year, around 7,000 people in Germany develop a brain tumor, and around half of those cases involve a glioblastoma, a particularly aggressive form of the disease. Glioblastomas are incurable, but advances are being made in both diagnostics and therapy. Scientists from the Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) in Heidelberg have discovered a fundamentally new way in which glioblastomas spread within the brain.

This news organization spoke to Wolfgang Wick, MD, medical director of the neurologic clinic at UKHD, about how glioblastomas are treated; the role that vaccinations, recombinant proteins, and parvoviruses play; and what therapeutic approaches might be derived from the discovery of this method by which glioblastomas spread.

Question: Glioblastomas spread through the brain like a fungal network. So how would a glioblastoma currently be treated? The tumor can only be partially removed through surgery.

Answer: Nevertheless, glioblastoma would be operated on. This would have a significant effect. Relieving the strain of the main tumor mass, without generating a new deficit, is prognostically very good for the patient concerned. However, surgery on glioblastoma is never curative.

The reason a cure is not possible is down to the special form and spread of the glioblastoma. Nevertheless, an operation helps. This seems to be because removing the main tumor mass maybe has a positive immunological effect. But it may also be connected to the tumor’s network communication. The surgical intervention stimulates the network by increasing resistance.

If the main tumor mass is decreased through a surgical procedure, this results in an at least temporarily improved starting position for the patient until the mass regenerates. This could also be connected to the fact that tumor communication is not unregulated but is rather in accordance with a certain hierarchy and order, which requires a certain structure and mass.

The other aspect is that support can be requested via this communication. You can imagine that a cell connected to another cell via a conduit receives help from this other cell in the form of organelles by exchanging ions and that, for example, stress or toxicity can be much better balanced out in large networks than in small networks. That means that external attacks, such as a surgical intervention, can be much better balanced by a well-organized network than by isolated cells.
 

Resistance to chemotherapy

Q: How do irradiation and chemotherapy rank in the treatment of glioblastomas?

A: Irradiation is another therapeutic approach. It causes cells to be stuck in the growth phase of the cell cycle. The cells are not killed through radiation, but they are practically halted. And this arrest of the cell cycle is often sufficient to help people with glioblastomas for a very long time. But the same is true for irradiation as for surgery. This deep network of cells cannot be addressed.

Attempts have been made in the past to reduce the radiation dose to the extent that the brain is no longer damaged by it, but this low dose was then not sufficient to exert any control. If you want to control the tumor, the dose must be high and the volume must be correspondingly low, since there is a clear limit.

Every patient is offered alkylating chemotherapy. At the moment, just one substance is used here in the primary therapy: temozolomide. The problem with this is that two-thirds of tumors in all cells exhibit a resistance to this alkylating chemotherapy, which means that the efficacy of this therapy is highly limited in two-thirds of patients.

In the one-third of patients in whom this resistance is not present, the chemotherapy works fairly well. But even then, it is unfortunately only a matter of time until there is a relapse or disease progression. In my practice, this has always been the case, but there are people who have been living with this disease for 20 years now. There seem to be tumor cells that calmly and silently survive this phase of chemotherapy and then restart the cell cycle at some point.

Q: What do you think of alternating electric fields as a therapy option?

A: Therapy with alternating electric fields is currently being used and offered to patients. This means that patients who have survived well through radiochemotherapy should also be offered treatment with alternating electric fields.

However, what happens in this process is not as well understood as with other therapies. It is assumed that the cell cycle, i.e., cell division, is altered by disrupting the mitotic spindle. But you can imagine, and this is now speculation, but quite sound speculation I believe, that alternating electric fields also cause a certain amount of confusion in the previously described networks. But this still needs to be investigated in more detail.

It is not implausible. We know that such alternating electric fields disturb the organization of cell organelles. And we also know that for this communication, we need fairly good order and also organization. This would definitely be a starting point on the way to understanding why this therapy potentially shows a certain effect in some patients.
 

Nerve cell precursors

Q: Scientists from the UKHD and the DKFZ have discovered a new glioblastoma spreading strategy and have learned that the tumor cells imitate the properties and movement patterns of nerve cells. They are labeling the results a “milestone in the field of cancer neuroscience.” Could you explain a bit more?

A: Glioblastoma does not grow on its own as a solid mass, but instead, the entire brain is affected by the disease. The question of how the tumor’s individual cells move the main tumor mass from afar, how they get there, how they continue to be supplied, and what their interaction partners are – an entirely new light has been shed on all of this in our work.

The development of tumor cell mobility has been recognized as a remnant of brain development. The tumor cells have retained properties that the precursor cells for nervous-system development require for an organized nervous system to emerge from just a few cells. This means that the tumor cells copy or eventually retain properties of the nerve-cell precursors that, unlike mature nerve cells, are mobile to a fairly high degree.

Mobility here means that it can advance along a network, despite said network being very densely packed. This also means that certain processes, such as releasing and then continuing to move again, must function and that the communication regarding the original disease must be maintained.

First, we understand what the different glioblastoma cell types do, which molecular properties are associated with which behaviors, and which cell type (namely the swarming cells) is responsible for the invasive tumor growth. In contrast, the network-forming cell type, which only develops from these, is responsible for the resistance.
 

Interrupting communication

Q: Which starting points for new therapies do you see?

A: In terms of new therapies, these movement phenomena are one good starting point. The other starting point – I find this one much more interesting – is that the programming steps that these tumor cells use [are] no longer needed. This is because our mature nervous system no longer requires this program, which was necessary for the mobility of cells in development.

Our central nervous system exhibits little cell movement. This is to do with programs of nervous-system development that are switched off in the mature nervous system. But they are then reactivated or remain active in the tumor cells. This process reveals potential starting points for therapy.

Addressing the movement of cells, that has been investigated for the last 20 years, but it seems to have an extraordinarily high number of side effects, because these movement mechanisms are also important for other, healthy cells in the body. For example, digestive mechanisms and other proliferation mechanisms, on mucous membranes, in the blood system, in the bone marrow, are then affected and no longer function.

There is another possible approach: the more-or-less specific interaction between the nerve cells and the tumor cells also offers starting points for therapies, from our point of view. The key word is epilepsy treatment. We know that people with brain tumors suffer badly, or worse than usual, from epileptic seizures. This was often regarded purely as a pressure problem. There is a disruptive element in the brain, and this causes the electrical activity in the brain to become disorganized. For some people, this can lead to seizures in certain situations.

The communication between tumor cells and nerve cells takes place via transmission substances, e.g., through the neurotransmitter glutamate. Now you can consider whether a “surplus” of communication, such as an excessively strong stimulus, can trigger epileptic seizures.

In this work, we demonstrate that by interrupting this communication, we can also prevent the movement of these cells and the growth, the proliferation, of these cells.

Q: What is the significance of parvoviruses for therapy?

A: The major topic for cancer is immunotherapy. And one option for performing immunotherapies lies with viruses. Parvoviruses are a plausible therapy for proliferating cells.

Parvoviruses are usually administered locally. This means that a surgical cavity is infected with the viruses and the tumor cells that remain after an operation will then hopefully be killed off by these viruses.

This is the first step and the immediate effect of virus therapy. The attempt is made to kill off cells in the same way as with a medication. The advantage of viruses is the high specificity, i.e., only dividing cells will be attacked. In addition, parvoviruses are so small that they can also spread well and circulate through the brain.

The second reason for immunotherapy is that when killing off cells with viruses, antigens are often released that otherwise would not be, depending on the virus. But it’s the case with parvoviruses. They integrate with the virus’s genetic material. When cells rupture, certain proteins are then revealed, hybrids of viruses and the human genome, and these are attractive to the immune system.

There is a whole range of studies on this subject. However, there are currently no randomized studies that directly compare the therapies. But the expectation is that the use of parvoviruses could be a good addition to therapy.

One limitation that should be mentioned is that the use of viruses may be beneficial for some patients, but it will not have an effect in every patient. What is exciting about parvoviruses is that these viruses can be injected via the bloodstream and still achieve a good effect in the brain.
 

Protein APG101

Q: How relevant is the recombinant protein APG101 to therapy?

A: APG101 is a protein that simulates the cell-death receptor CD95 and binds with a stable antibody fragment. By doing so, it blocks the signaling pathway between CD95 ligand and receptor. The interaction between the CD95 ligand and the CD95 receptor activates an intracellular signaling pathway, which in turn stimulates the invasive growth and migration of tumor cells.

APG101 blocks the CD95 ligand and thereby prevents the activation of the CD95 signaling pathway, which leads to a reduction in the invasive cell growth and migration.

Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is a system we have used throughout our evolution to kill off the cell components we no longer need. During tumor development, this system is perverted, so to speak. Here, the stimulation of this system does not actually lead to cell death but rather to cell movement (i.e., to cell mobility). And in principle, APG101 blocks this mobility.

To date, I only know of three studies in which the medication has been used for tumors. One study was published 8 years ago. We demonstrated that we can achieve a relatively good effect with APG101 in connection with repeat irradiation, compared with repeat irradiation alone. We consider this effect to most likely be due to this influence on cell mobility.

There is a study on primary therapy: a four-arm study by the Neuro-Oncological Working Group. The results are still not available, however. In addition, a study on primary therapy with APG101 is currently being conducted in China. It is investigating whether the mechanism of action influences mobility. Whether it will be pushed through as therapy remains to be seen.
 

Vaccinations and antigens

Q: Vaccinations are of course a part of immunotherapy. What is their status?

A: We are looking at the IDH1 protein, which is present in mutated form in a group of brain tumors, as a very good target for a vaccine. The reason is that the protein is present in its mutated form in every cell of the tumor but not in healthy cells. That is a prerequisite for immunotherapy.

We started a study with peptides a few years ago. These peptides are injected under the skin on the stomach and leg. They cause an immune response systemically and in the brain tumor. This immune response may cause an inflammatory reaction (we can demonstrate this inflammatory reaction). And in this noncontrolled study, the approach was successful, at least compared to historical controls. There is no randomized study with treatment-naive control patients.

However, we are cautious because we know that peptide, unlike CAR T cells or RNA-based vaccines, for example, only triggers a relatively small immune response in many patients. The scale of the immune response is important, rather than the specificity. The scale is probably not large enough in most patients for a long-term effect to be expected.

But there are exceptions. Patients we vaccinated many years ago still have a very remarkable immune status. But we also have patients in whom an immune status cannot even be seen anymore, after just a short period of time.

Therefore, our aim is to perform the immune strategy with more effective, stronger measures – not more specific, but stronger. Unfortunately, it is often the case with glioblastomas that there is not a single antigen that can be vaccinated against. Instead, a relatively large cocktail is needed, which unfortunately also often varies from patient to patient. The conditions are difficult.

Q: You mentioned that glioblastomas can be classified into subgroups. Does this improve the prognosis?

A: Yes, in certain subgroups the prognosis improves. That is the case with those usually very small groups that are molecularly well defined. I believe that by better understanding the individual groups, we have succeeded in making major progress in those groups. But where there is light, there is also shadow. We know that there are many groups with which we have not achieved a great deal.

Fundamental research leads to a better understanding, and the next step in this is to be able to adapt the therapy. Instead of it being one therapy for everyone, it will become a part of various differing therapies for these quite different groups. We are making a lot of progress with individual groups. But unfortunately, we have not come quite as far as we want with many patients.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.