Neuro-oncology

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

Following tumor removal in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, an absorbable collagen tile can deliver a controlled and therapeutic dose of radiation that targets remaining tumor cells and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.

The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.

Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.

This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.

Radioactive seeds

GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.

The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.

Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.

The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.

GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.

It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.

“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.

With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.

Safety profile

The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.

“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.

Six participants had 0 ⁶ -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.

The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).

Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.

Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.

He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.

As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.

“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”

One and done

Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.

In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.

The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.

Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.

“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.

A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.

“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.

Interesting, timely

Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”

These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.

“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.

However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.

In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.

Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following tumor removal in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, an absorbable collagen tile can deliver a controlled and therapeutic dose of radiation that targets remaining tumor cells and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.

The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.

Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.

This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.

Radioactive seeds

GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.

The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.

Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.

The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.

GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.

It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.

“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.

With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.

Safety profile

The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.

“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.

Six participants had 0 ⁶ -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.

The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).

Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.

Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.

He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.

As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.

“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”

One and done

Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.

In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.

The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.

Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.

“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.

A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.

“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.

Interesting, timely

Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”

These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.

“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.

However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.

In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.

Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following tumor removal in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, an absorbable collagen tile can deliver a controlled and therapeutic dose of radiation that targets remaining tumor cells and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.

The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.

Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.

This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.

Radioactive seeds

GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.

The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.

Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.

The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.

GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.

It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.

“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.

With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.

Safety profile

The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.

“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.

Six participants had 0 ⁶ -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.

The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).

Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.

Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.

He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.

As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.

“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”

One and done

Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.

In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.

The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.

Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.

“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.

A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.

“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.

Interesting, timely

Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”

These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.

“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.

However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.

In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.

Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.

The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).

“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.

As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.

“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”

The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.

For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.

Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).

“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”

The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.

New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.

The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).

“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.

As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.

“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”

The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.

For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.

Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).

“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”

The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.

New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.

The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).

“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.

As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.

“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”

The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.

For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.

Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).

“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”

The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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